When is smoking socially unacceptable?
Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 13:29 In case you missed it, yesterday was No Smoking Day.
At risk of sounding like a stuck record, NSD ain't what it used to be.
When I first joined Forest we spent weeks preparing for it, sending out media packs to journalists and broadcasters. (In those days everything had to be photocopied, stuffed in envelopes and posted – that's how long ago it was!)
Almost every national newspaper had something about the event.
The regional press lapped it up too with local businesseses more than happy to jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon for a little publicity. (Ban smoking at work? In 2001 that was a guaranteed headline in the Witheringham Hall Gazette.)
In London members of the House of Lords' pipe and cigar club (or whatever it was called) would gather outside the Palace of Westminster for a group photograph and the resulting picture would invariably make the next day's papers – sometimes on the front page.
I was warned that NSD was the busiest day of the year for Forest and for a couple of years it was. I encouraged my colleages to organise a media-friendly PR stunt – a "smoker-friendly fry-up" at Simpsons-in-the-Strand, a day trip to Paris ("the European capital of smoking") – anything to quell the tide of anti-smoking propoaganda.
I might be wrong but NSD was, I think, an organisation in its own right. I'm not sure what the structure is now but it was taken over by the British Heart Foundation a few years ago and it limps on, still generating some media interest but it's no longer a national 'event'.
How could it be with Public Health England pumping gallons of public money into Stoptober, including hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees for celebrity endorsements?
Anyway, to cut a long story short, one of the questions I was asked during an interview yesterday was, "Is smoking socially unacceptable?"
Naturally my answer was "No" but I qualified it by saying it depends on the circumstances.
After thinking about it further here are some examples of when I think smoking is socially acceptable, and when it's not.
It's highly subjective and your thoughts may be very different but I'll ask (and answer) the question anyway.
Is it socially acceptable to smoke ...
At home – yes
In your own car – yes
On the beach – yes
In a public park – yes
In a pub or bar with the proprietor's consent – yes
Outside a pub or bar – yes
In the street – yes
In a hospital ward – no
In hospital grounds – yes
In a cinema – no
On public transport – no
In someone else's house without their permission – no
What strikes me about that list is that even I, a non-smoker but a staunt advocate of smokers' rights, now considers it socially unacceptable to smoke in the cinema or on public transport.
Twenty or thirty years ago I would almost certainly have said 'yes'. Sixty years ago, had I been an adult in the 1950s, I would probably have considered it acceptable to smoke in a hospital ward too.
The question therefore is how will my responses to the same questions change in the next 10-20 years?
After all there's a difference between my personal view of what is socially acceptable or unacceptable and what society at large considers to be acceptable or unacceptable.
Many people, for example, have a far higher tolerance for 'loud' music than I do so what I consider to be socially unacceptable may not shared by the wider public.
Anyway, allowing for all that I'd be interested to know where, in 2016, you consider it socially acceptable to smoke.
I'm not talking about where it's legal to smoke but where you feel most at ease and get the least tut-tutting or dirty looks from non-smokers.
For example, someone I know who lives in Geneva told me she is far less relaxed about smoking in London because she senses people's intolerance.
One passer-by, she told me, tut-tutted as she lit up. That, she said, would never happen in Switzerland (or many other European countries).
Yes, smoking in the street in Britain is legal but is it socially acceptable? I believe it still is – genuine anti-smoking fanatics are a very small minority of the population – but intolerance is growing, driven by propaganda about passive smoking and the alleged impact on children of seeing a complete stranger light up several yards away.
Ditto parks, beaches and other outdoor areas.
That's the battle that faces us in the next decade – keeping smoking socially acceptable in those public (and private) spaces where it has not yet been prohibited.
In the meantime here's that question again:
'When – in your opinion or experience – is smoking socially acceptable or unacceptable?'
Reader Comments (56)
I certainly agree with all the places you marked 'Yes'.
I would also include inside any cinema, restaurant, pub, hotel, railway carriage etc which displays the sign 'This is a smoking restaurant, cinema' etc. Then everyone has the freedom to choose.
I would concur with you on every item in your list - except for public transport.
Whilst I would generally agree that it isn't wise to allow free-for-all smoking on crowded commuter trains, or smaller enclosed spaces such as buses, I can see no justification for completely disallowing smoking on long-distance trains or long-haul flights.
I am a regular train traveler - nowadays more in continental Europe than in the UK, but I used to travel regularly between Birmingham and various towns in Scotland for business purposes. On these latter trips, I would always head to the smoking carriage (usually coach A - at the end of the train) and esconce myself there for the whole 5 to 6 hour journey, with my laptop and choice of reading material. All in all it made for a pleasant and productive journey.
Now, fast-forward 10 years, and, should I do the same journey now, there is no smoking carriage option (and even overt use of an eCig sends the train staff into an attack of the .. er .. vapours!) Furthermore, there is, in the UK, no option to nip off the train at an intermediate station stop to grab 'a quick drag', as we, alone amongst all European countries, have chosen to ban smoking on wide open station platforms. All in all, this journey, were I to need to do it as regularly in the past, would be a very unpleasant experience indeed, not only due to long-term nicotine deprivation, but (mainly) because of the constant reminders of the nasty authoritarian state in which I live - resulting, inevitably, in soaring blood pressure, and a high state of irritation and discomfort when I reach my destination. Not at all conducive to relaxed long-distance working, nor to productivity.
So, I can't agree that smoking couldn't still be allowed in the one carriage out of (typically) seven or eight on a long-distance, inter-city train (Virgin now run 11 coach trains on the West Coast main line), and, despite the mendacious claims made by professional anti-smokers, to have this one carriage, at the extreme end of the train, wouldn't cause any discomfort to other passengers, so why would it be 'socially unacceptable'? Oh, and what proportion of a train would it be 'socially' acceptable to allow for use by the 20% of the population who smoke? I would say it is socially unacceptable to deny one fifth of the population the ability to enjoy a comfortable and relaxing journey, wouldn't you?
I should add that, in 2006 (before the general smoking ban), GNER, who then held the East Coast main line franchise, were refurbishing all of their 'mark IV' train sets, and they decided, against the growing trend, to retain a smoking facility, albeit by reducing the space to the endmost one third of coach A, with new partitions separating this from the rest of the carriage. They also installed far more powerful air conditioning, with the result that the smoking section was as fresh as any other part of the train. This was amazing, considering that, whilst there were only 27 seats available, this section was always crowded, not just with those of us who occupied the seats for the duration, but also by other smokers who, for whatever reason, had opted to sit in the non-smoking (rest of the train) section, but would then wander along to the smoking section for a quick cigarette - like pathetic children, indulging themselves in what they appeared to think was a guilty pleasure. I had more contempt for these folks, who regularly interrupted the peacefulness of my journey, then I did for the occasional anti-smoker that wandered in, saw people smoking, and ran off whining as if they had been stricken down by a deadly virus!
All in all, I am disappointed with your view, Simon, as I would think that a campaign to bring back the smoking compartment would be right up Forest's street. I believe that, if framed properly, it would win a lot of public support. Oh, and please, please will someone, Forest or otherwise, take up the cudgels about the egregious banning of smoking on open station platforms. It isn't all about pubs, you know.
Finally, since I mentioned planes too; as a 'white-knuckle' flyer, there is no way that I would be able to travel anywhere by plane if I couldn't calm my nerves in the only way that ever worked for me. As a consequence, I haven't flown since smoking was banned on all flights (my last flight was 1989, I think), and will never do so again. As you can imagine, this makes me very popular with my family when it comes to planning holidays!
I think you should be able to smoke anywhere in public and of course on your own private property.
I have a somewhat different viewpoint to most of your readers, being domiciled in a country that is very smoker-friendly, and where despite the bans handed down from on high in Brussels (where the MEPs, let us not forget, are allowed to smoke in their offices and where comfortable internal smoking booths are provided for staff) you would be hard put to actually realise that smoking bans existed. Smoking here is considered normal and acceptable. Generally speaking, people abide by the ban on buses (except the drivers, that is, who happily light up when driving), and in hospital wards mostly, although there are plenty of places to smoke in the hospital and grounds. Bars and restaurants mostly ignore the ban unless the owner is a non-smoker. That said, the owner of my local bar doesn't smoke, but he still has ashtrays on the bar. Also, most offices (banks excepted) are very laid back about it, and most people smoke at work. A few years ago I had to go to the main police station front office, and you could barely see all the big 'NO SMOKING' signs for the fug of tobacco smoke.
However, to your question, I would agree with Brian B about long distance transport. Why on earth can't smoker's carriages be provided on trains? I don't see it as socially unacceptable to be able to enjoy a smoke while travelling. Likewise long haul flights. These days when I fly long haul, I will always break my journey. Since I mostly fly to SE Asia, I use the Middle Eastern airlines, which means a short stopover about half way. Time to stretch my legs, have a coffee / beer and a smoke. I bet if long haul airlines put on a weekly flight with a smoking section, it would be over-subscribed. The phenomenon of 'air rage' only started when they banned smoking.
So to sum up, I would disagree with you on the public transport issue.
Hospital wards, if there are multiple occupants, ok fair enough - but there should be easy access to a smoking room for the patients. When I was in hospital for a couple of days here a few years ago, the ward had a door at each end. One to the corridor, and one to the large balcony which ran the length of the building, on which ashtrays were provided. Very civilised.
Other peoples homes without permission? Well that's simply a matter of good manners. Although, again, I have a few friends here who don't smoke, but whenever I visit, they always put an ashtray on the table by me. The Greeks haven't been indoctrinated like the Brits. Theirs is a 'live and let live' approach to life. You won't see any hand-waving or tut-tutting here.
Cinemas? Not sure about that one. I'm not sure what the situation is here on the island because the one single-screen cinema never has anything I want to watch, and it's miles away anyway. I only ever go to the cinema when I'm in Bangkok these days. There it's strictly non-smoking, but it doesn't really bother me one way or the other. It's only for a couple of hours. I don't see smoking in the cinema as 'socially unacceptable' though. Why should it be? It would be easy enough to have smoking days and non-smoking days. That way, everyone is catered for, not just the whingers.
Interesting that 'NSD' passed virtually unnoticed by the majority! Eight years ago I railed against the smoking ban on the grounds of "freedom of choice" AND the financial crippling of this country! Most laughed at me and some still do but the chickens are now all to clearly coming home to roost as we stare at a debt of £1.8tr!
It was worked out that with all the closures, the job losses, the benefits needing to be paid out to the newly & needlessly unemployed. Add to that the loss of Treasury revenue to falling sales and those sneaky smugglers (who can sell their wares anywhere) plus the loss of revenue to the now food orientated pubs you are looking at a cost of £1/2bn every single month - and it's still rising! :)
It doesn't matter who you ask in any sort of power (including my MP) about this abominable cost they all think thatcirca £50bn is well worth even 1 single person having quit courtesy of this hate campaign.
The amazing thing is that now that "Smoke Free Sth West" have been shut down (June heeheehee!) the screams have already started-irregardless of the enormous cost and they forget 2 very important facts:
a)... The danish study clearly proved that those who live longer cost the NHS more money than smokers
b)... It is obvious that, if as they state on numerous occasions, smokers die long before non-smokers, then non-smokers are costing the country a fortune by living longer (Welfare/Pension payments)
Perhaps they are finally beginning to realise that they have crippled this countries finances, salami slice by salami slice! :)
It was when the anti-smoking lobby successfully lobbied for the smoking carriages on trains to be abolished
that I first realised that they were far more concerned with denying smokers space to smoke in rather than as I had previously thought merely ensuring that non-smokers had places to go that were free of smoke. I don't think I have ever met a smoker that thinks they should be able to smoke in all compartments of all trains or in all parts of all pubs and all restaurants but I know plenty of non-smokers who believe that they should be able to be in all those places and never see someone smoking. I struggle to understand why so many non-smokers have this sense of entitlement to monopolise space and yet so few (if any) smokers think they should be able to smoke
everywhere. I think the answer is that discrimination against smokers is now so widespread and mainstream that is is not seen as discrimination. The fact that so many adoption agencies will not allow 20% of the population to adopt purely because
of their smoking status shows how deep this discrimination is. It is far more disgusting than the smoking ban because it implies that non-smokers are qualified to bring up children and smokers are not. Discrimination doesn't get much more disgusting than that and yet so many people think it is acceptable when it clearly shouldn't be.
Yes in a cinema especially multi plexes that could have one screen for smoking and one non smoking. I have not been in a cinema since the ban.
Social exclusion is very anti social
Incidentally, if anyone Tut's at me they get a gobful and told to mind their own damn business.
I think some of you are misreading the post, although I appreciate it's open to interpretation. I support 100 per cent the concept of choice so I agree that in a perfect world there would be smoking carriages, smoking rooms etc etc etc.
The reality is there is no prospect of smoking carriages ever returning to trains in the UK. Nor will we ever again have smoking rooms inside hospitals. This isn't being defeatist, it's being realistic.
Likewise if a businessman wanted to launch a cinema where people could watch films and smoke, I'd support that too. Again the reality is the law is against it so as things stand it's socially unacceptable to smoke in a cinema. (You could argue that it would be socially acceptable – albeit illegal – if the cinema was empty but that's a philosophical issue.)
The question I posed ('When is smoking socially unacceptable?') was based on things as they are, not as we would like them to be.
The purpose was to invite opinion on when (and where) you believe it is still socially acceptable to smoke. There are two reasons for this: one, I am interested to know how far people differ on this. (I suspect, for example, that not all smokers will agree on places where it is currently socially unacceptable to smoke and it would useful to have that information.)
Two, in order to robustly defend those places where smokers can still light up without feeling guilty, it would useful to know what and where they are before they too are lost, possibly for ever. This includes, for example, pub beer gardens although I take the point this shouldn't always be about pubs.
Finally, I am all for trying to reclaim places where it is socially acceptable to smoke but we have to be realistic. Designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs are worth fighting for because it's not inconceivable we could achieve a partial amendment (however difficult that currently appears), but hospital smoking rooms?
Oh - I absolutely enjoyed your post and the replies so far.
We flew back from Paris to Manchester the year the bans on railway stations was implemented. Smoking was also banned at the airport. So as the station, which is IN the airport, was the closest place in the open air to smoke, all us smokers on the way up to the Lakes, lit up on the platform. Suddenly uniformed airport "officials" appeared with squirty bottles of water and sprayed those of us who did not immediately ditch their fag. We were sprayed with water like misbehaving animals! I took this as an act of physical assault and from that moment, illumination came to me that Tobacco Control ideology is a vicious, evil thing.
And the UK has gone completely mental to so devoutly implement such ideology on its own citizens!
There should be some consideration to smokers everywhere.
If we were fair in treating smokers, the mood, health, vitality, finances, creativity, imagination, art, science, entertainment, hospitality,joy, energy and happiness of our country would resurrect itself. Our country would be re-normalised!
Here is the post I wrote about our treatment at Manchester Airport - http://lifeonanalienplanet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-smell-of-burning-and-its-not.html
These "tut tut" types can be pretty annoying - I bet a lot of them drive polluting cars quite happily.
@vapingpoint - Good grief! I hope you took action.
Designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs are worth fighting for because it's not inconceivable we could achieve a partial amendment (however difficult that currently appears), but hospital smoking rooms?
And why on earth not hospital smoking rooms, Simon? I'm sure patients who smoke would not only be more comfortable but would also enjoy a faster recovery if they were not having to battle censorious killjoy moralists forcing them against their will to abstain from something they find a comforting companion, as well as having to deal with their ailment. It's traumatic enough just being in hospital, without having to deal with being treated like some errant child by self-righteous prigs. There is no civil reason to deny someone the pleasure of a smoke. A well ventilated room on every floor for smoking patients would demonstrate that the hospital actually cared about their patients rather than their warped ideology.
"The question I posed ('When is smoking socially unacceptable?') was based on things as they are, not as we would like them to be."
Simon, Simon you can't use that argument to dismiss those of us who argue that smoking should still be allowed in trains, cinemas etc, on the basis that "the reality is the law is against it so as things stand it's socially unacceptable to smoke in a cinema." Otherwise, doesn't that make you a tad hypocritical for arguing that smoking is socially acceptable in a bar "with the proprietor's consent"? Isn't that, too, against the law, so, by your post hoc rationale, also socially unacceptable? Hmm?
Oh, and yes it is defeatist to argue that "there is no prospect of smoking carriages ever returning to trains in the UK". Nothing must stay the same forever just because we currently have idiots posing as politicians - led by mendacious and greedy anti-smoking advocates, and, sadly, facing little resistance from supine "smokers' rights" groups. It is the public who will determine the long-term viability of the present draconian laws, not politicians, nor activists of any stripe. If the public have no mood for the continuance of such bad laws, they will fall. I feel - very strongly - that the whole of the 2006 Health Act smoking ban coverage was enacted, not through a clamour from the public for protection from evil smokers, but solely at the behest of the activists and, on the personal whims of individual MPs. That is only a basis for bad law. Such bad law may well be obeyed in the immediate term by an ovine population, such as that in the UK, but it will only become sustainable in the long term if no-one voices any objections.
So, by all means campaign for smoking rooms in pubs, but I would also like Forest to rail (geddit?) against the banning of smoking on open station platforms - and then the door will be open for a return of the smoking carriage, and then further liberation can follow.
Does Forest really care about what is socially acceptable? If so, go and ask the public at large - you will likely find the real answer there.
Oh and yes, since you ask, I am a bit irritated at having my considered views summarily dismissed - by someone who is supposed to be on my side.
As a postscript, i have to declare that I never feel guilty when lighting a cigarette. Never have, never do and never will - and that includes many places where it is officially against the law.
Indeed, I gain some perverse pleasure in breaking this most unwarranted law, and would encourage everyone else to do likewise, since that is the best way to take down bad law - and to demonstrate that 20% of the population must still enjoy some rights in defining what is 'socially acceptable'.
Let's face it, governments always beat certain individuals with a stick. It's sneaky though and can't be obvious due to legislation.
Lies told often enough will always fall on the scapegoat.
Unfortunately it shows how uneducated and how weak our successive governments have been.
Simon - I won't give an inch. I was born a smoker, I've smoked a lifetime. I am not socially unacceptable. I will smoke until I die.
In a real socially inclusive world, there is room for all of us. The world and the country and our faciliites and technology can accommodate both smoker and non smoker. We must never surrender. Imagine if Antis during their least popular times had given up and gone home. Keep giving over spaces and they will take more.
I could not disagree with your comment more. The bans up to 2007 we can accept. Blanket and spiteful bans after that date are socially unacceptable and if you represent us well, and you do, you must push the idea that since 2007 we have been victims ourselves of anti-social behaviour.
Pat, you're misinterpreting my comments. I don't think smokers are socially unacceptable nor do I think smoking per se is socially unacceptable. But who can deny there are some places where it is now socially unacceptable to smoke and all I wanted to do was ask readers to give me their opinions on when it is acceptable or not acceptable to smoke! I don't believe readers of this blog believe it's acceptable to smoke anywhere they please, do they? Your comments bear no relation to my post and are certainly not in the spirit of the post.
Once again, I agree with Brian B. I too never feel guilty or 'socially unacceptable' about smoking, and the only situation I can see where it would be 'socially unacceptable' is where you are a guest in someone's private house and you'd been asked not to smoke. And as I said before, that's a matter of simple good manners, rather than being 'socially acceptable'.
As an aside, going back to the hospital situation and the perceived health ramifications, it is worth noting that Greece has the highest per capita consumption of cigarettes in the world at somewhere near 3000 cigs per annum, as opposed to the UK with a per capita consumption of a quarter of that figure, at about 750, and yet the Greeks are among the top ranking countries in the world for longevity, with about the same life expectancy as the Brits. Which rather gives the lie to smokers dying early. And as I said, they have the decency to provide smoking facilities in and around hospitals, which doesn't seem to impact negatively on the patients at all. In fact it probably improves the outcome since it removes a layer of unnecessary stress in an anyway stressful situation.
Actually, Simon, I think that readers of this blog would consider it to be quite acceptable to smoke anywhere - hospitals, public transport, cinemas, pubs - with the proviso that non-smokers can be accommodated which in those examples they used to be (I can't believe that non-smoking downstairs cinema-goers were inconvenienced by smokers in the balcony). It's only become unacceptable by virtue of being banned and being banned on the grounds of the 'danger' of SHS.
Your remarks about the change in your own attitude to smoking in cinemas and on public transport suggest that legislation doesn't reflect changing attitudes but rather that legislation changes attitudes - and don't TC know it. I think that this is the real reason behind the drive to legislate against outdoor smoking: you don't just outlaw the behaviour, you create eventually the disbelief that the behaviour could ever have been acceptable. HMG should have the foresight to realise that if attitudes change to the extent that smokers are considered to be so beyond the pale that no smoker would dare disobey an outdoor smoking law then it has a serious loss of revenue problem on its hands and that, I think, would focus its mind more than any civil liberties argument.
I think it's socially unacceptable to smoke when scuba diving.
Pat Nurse says:
"Incidentally, if anyone Tut's at me they get a gobful and told to mind their own damn business"
Here lies the real problem, this last century attitude to smoking is still very prevelant and the reason there is no chance of any changes to the smoking ban.
Your comments were clear and fair Simon.
Pat Nurse does smokers rights no good whatsoever.
Simon, the point I was trying to make was a general one.
It's not a question of whether we accept or agree smoking is "socially unacceptable" anywhere because ultimately there can always be choice.
Smokers smoke.It is legal. We are not jacking up in nursery schools, on buses, in cinemas, behind bike sheds etc etc... we are not pissing in the street .... even though antis want the wider public to think that having a smoke is exactly the same as jacking up heroin or pissing in the street.
If smoking is socially unacceptable then by definition because of what they do smokers are too and you must agree that antismokers are trying to make us socially unacceptable where ever we go - hence the encouragement to tut-tut at us minding our own business in the limited places we have every right to be.
Any ban after 2007, and some before that, are socially unacceptable and we must keep pushing that. Removing smoking rooms from hospitals was anti-social. No one else was ever affected by them except the people who needed their comfort.
Forcing mental health patients to quit is anti-social and, as you say, as these things become the enforced "norm" we are forced into being anti-social.
We are not wrong and we must gain ground back.
If that misinterprets your post it doesn't matter. As usual, your posts are so thought provoking that they raise all kinds of issues around an issue.
The issue now is raised and for once it would be nice to be ahead of the game and call an end here and now to any further moves to call smoking anywhere anti-social.
What next? I get your point. On a beach? Give it 10 years, or 5, or 2, maybe 1, if we accept it, yes. We must never accept it.No more. As you have said a million times, enough is enough and it was more than enough a long time ago.
Smoking is centuries old, rabid, abusive and socially destructive antismokerism is at best 20 years old. History tells us anti-smokerism is socially unacceptable and it continues to be.
Keep pushing that point. We must never give another inch. It is only a tiny step from anti-social to criminal. That is where those *thugs (yes, I know you hate that term but it fits) are pushing us.
My comment wasn't meant at having a go at you or Forest but every time we concede,or even raise the spectre that we believe it is anti-social somewhere, we plead Guilty M'Lud and deserve all we get and we are helping them to make us that little bit more socially unacceptable.
I hope that clarifies my position.
"But who can deny there are some places where it is now socially unacceptable"
But is that genuinely socially unacceptable to the average person or recently declared socially unacceptable by campaigners in the hopes that the average person will eventually come to believe it if they keep saying it often enough?
What is and what is not socially acceptable can only be determined by society itself and society wasn't given that option.
The phrase 'Socially Acceptable' is a philosophical concept. It is an 'idea'. It is an invention. At best, the phrase merely describes what a given group of people are 'comfortable' with. Thus, if the owner of a pub permitted smoking, then the people who used that pub would be comfortable with smoking. Likewise, users of a non-smoking pub would find smoking uncomfortable. When the Zealots stepped in and got smoking banned in every 'public place indoors', social acceptability ceased to be a factor. It is the law which is the problem and not society.
Who gives a damn about the law. Smoke wherever it is safe to, ie not near flammable materials !
"I think it's socially unacceptable to smoke when scuba diving."
Best response yet.
That said, much as I support smokers, and smoking, I do think there's an element of bluster going on here. After all, if you're sitting in a cinema surrounded by other people I defy anyone to light a cigarette in that situation and not feel uncomfortable. That's because it has become "socially unacceptable" (not just illegal) to smoke in a cinema. That's all I'm saying.
It's all very well saying we should have smoking & non-smoking cinemas but we don't so that's not an answer to the question.
Is it socially acceptable - rather than legal? Well that depends purely on ones social circle. So, yes.
BrianB, I think you'll find that if you ask the general public "Is it socially unacceptable to smoke on a train?" a large majority will say yes, even many smokers, because they will assume you mean a train without a smoking compartment. Hopefully you would get a different response if you specify a train with a smoking compartment but try getting a UK train company to agree to providing such a compartment. It won't happen. That's not being defeatist, it's being realistic. Are you seriously suggesting Forest should launch a campaign to bring back smoking compartments in trains? We won't give up fighting for separate smoking rooms in pubs and clubs but that's a tough enough battle without making our lives even harder or making ourselves appear ridiculous.
Credibility is important in a political battle (because that's what this is – politics) and there are some battles it's pointless fighting otherwise you lose credibility with the decision-makers and even some of your own supporters. (I'm sorry to break it to you but many of the opinions expressed here are not representative of the 'average' smoker that I listen to in focus groups. OK, OK, I'm not a fan of focus groups either but in my experience they are far more representative of smokers in general than the hardcore readers of a blog such as this.)
The use of the phrase "socially acceptable" was started by the Anti Tobacco Industry, which was well aware that the lazy press and media would latch on to it. The same has happened with alcohol. The BBC routinely talks about x million people "exceeding their alcohol limits", as if we have now all accepted we have a limit which must on no account be exceeded.
The whole plan of the Global anti-smoker industry is to make smokers socially unacceptable.
The only thing here that IS socially unacceptable is anti-smoking and anti-smoker prejudice. By buying into their notion that society has undergone permanent change you're falling for their 'con'-fidence trick. This sort of nonsense has occurred many times throughout history and will eventually crash and burn this time too.
Of course people should be able, and feel free, to smoke anywhere and at any time. But always with consideration for other people and especially their hosts.
Naturally it is reasonable to discuss the circumstances under which smoking might be inconsiderate or not but please do not use the phrase "socially unacceptable" .
After all, if you're sitting in a cinema surrounded by other people I defy anyone to light a cigarette in that situation and not feel uncomfortable. That's because it has become "socially unacceptable" (not just illegal) to smoke in a cinema.
Yes, but it has become socially unacceptable because it is illegal, and for no other reason. It wasn't made illegal because it was socially unacceptable, it was made illegal because a minority of well funded single-issue zealots lied and lobbied about the 'dangers' of SHS.
Any illegal act, no matter what it is, which will cause problems for a business owner is 'socially unacceptable', purely because the Brits don't like causing a fuss.
When you ask the question "Is it socially acceptable to smoke in....?", what you are basically asking is: "Where do you feel being 'denormalised' and marginalised to satisfy the warped ideology of the anti-smoking zealots is acceptable?"
And the answer to that is "nowhere".
I take comfort from Bernard's wise words: "Your comments were clear and fair, Simon." I thought so, too!
'Socially unacceptable' is a judgement based on various factors including (perhaps especially) fashion, which constantly changes. In this case it has been driven by dishonest propaganda and fear-mongering by the medical 'priesthood' and entrenched by legislation. There was no popular demand for smoking bans. I would argue that if smoking has become socially unacceptable (as opposed to simply illegal) it's partly British passivity in the face of authority, and partly because it seems to fit quite well with a currently fashionable outlook, especially among the metropolitan political and media elite, that is health-obsessed, puritanical, and disdainful of ordinary peoples' pleasures.The antismoking mindset - emboldened by authorities and 'experts' - sees smoking as socially unacceptable everywhere. So, I don't want to volunteer suggestions on where and when smoking is unacceptable: I want to be rid of smoking bans and for people to work out between them what is socially acceptable and what isn't. If fashion dictates that only one pub in ten allows smoking, so be it. What I'm concerned about, is the government banning smoking in all of them.
I'm tired of hearing about 'being realistic'. I want to agree in principle, but in the current situation, where pretty much all the power is on the other side, realism gets awfully close to defeatism. Of course we should make a rational and intelligent argument, but there's a need not just for realism but for idealism, for anger, for trying things that aren't 'realistic', and for sticking to your guns when you know you're right. I think that commands respect over the longer term.
Anyway: I don't think we misinterpreted your question, Simon. We all know what we're up against. But I think you have an audience here which sometimes finds FOREST too conciliatory, which is bloody furious about the way we're treated, and is not necessarily in a mood to debate finer points. I'm with Pat Nurse, Nisakiman, Brian B, Junican et al: on an emotional level, it's like you're asking us whether, being realistic, accepting the way things are, not making too much of a fuss, respecting the law, etc etc, we prefer being slapped or being kicked.
Simon you are banging your head against a brick wall trying to be moderate and sensible.
When Nisakiman says its become socially unacceptabale only because of "legal reasons" and no other reason, he fails to realise why countless millions in the UK hate second hand smoke because the effect it has on their health (eyesting/Asthma) and clothes stink
how did the no brainer truth of attitudes to smoking by the public be so ignored, its simple denial and dishonest, the smoking ban is worldwide and not "managed" by a minority of single issue zealots all involved in a conspiracy that controls governments around the world.
Its the public thoroughout the world and their attitudes/beliefs to smoking caused by smoking cigartettes and the efects it has on them, thats why they want to quit not because its being denormilsed or made sort of illegal.
There is room for sensible changes to the smoking ban that Forest /Simon would like , I'm afraid the lunatic fringe seem to make the most noise ont he internet.
Shame
Bernard
@Bernard - you display the intolerance of the anti-smoker zealot for whom it isn't enough that your preference is accommodated but that no accommodation whatsoever should be made for the smoker and "countless millions" do not feel as you do. Polling has shown that non-smokers are happy for provision to be made for smokers, they realise that the two can co-exist. Legislation denied that option and the legislation was driven by lobbyists, not the court of public opinion.
So, Bernard, explain to me why the Brits (of whom you appear to be the present day epitome), who have been subjected to years of relentless propaganda from the anti-smoking lobby "...hate second hand smoke because the effect it has on their health (eyesting/Asthma) and clothes stink", whereas the Greeks, who haven't been subjected to even a fraction of that indoctrination, don't have a problem with it at all? Is it a racial thing? Do the Greeks have different olfactory senses?
I have never heard a Greek complain that 'their clothes stink', and indeed, most Greeks are well aware that the SHS myth is just that - a myth with no evidence and no scientific basis.
In fact, when I was young, before all this idiocy (and propaganda) began, I never heard any complaints in UK either about 'stinking clothes'. My parents, both non-smokers, always kept a box of cigarettes and ashtrays for guests, and I never heard them complain about the 'stink'; indeed, my mother quite liked the smell of some tobaccos, particularly the aromatic Dutch blends. And she was severely asthmatic.
Methinks you have been successfully indoctrinated, and you can parrot the Tobacco Control soundbites without even having to think too hard.
...the smoking ban is worldwide and not "managed" by a minority of single issue zealots all involved in a conspiracy that controls governments around the world.
The smoking ban is worldwide because the WHO is in thrall to the big pharmaceutical companies, who finance their anti-smoking activities to the tune of billions. The WHO in turn have created the FCTC, which is a treaty which compels its signatories to enact smoking bans. The WHO, who is hand-in-glove with the IMF suggests to governments that if they don't sign the FCTC that they may find the IMF less than helpful when those governments might need financial assistance. Some would call it blackmail. All this is documented, and can be found if you care to look.
So don't try to tell us that the smoking bans are a popular, grassroots movement. They are not, and never were. They are down to a calculated and concerted push by a small group of well funded fanatics with powerful connections.
@Nisakiman, I have no idea why Greeks don't notice clothes stink/eye sting/Asthma from second hand smoke. I am bloody well certain anyone who remembers packed clubs/Disco's/restuarants/pubs full of smokers recognise those effects here in the UK back in the day.
To try and pretend those effects are imaginary or because the British have been indoctrinated is about the most lunatic comment that I have ever read, I understand now why your "socially unacceptable" rant is so twisted and bizzarre.
The way forward with getting some elements of the smoking ban changed which in my opinion would be socially acceptable is not by going "flat earthing" but sensible lobbying and a common sense approach. Simon has to promote smokers rights, he cannot be expected to say clothes stink and other unacceptable problems, eye sting/Asthma caused by SHS are false and expect to be taken seriously.
Internet rants are one thing, face to face with ASH means bloody stupid statements should be avoided.
Sir George Godber, Chief Medical Officer.
"Godber recollected that he had said in 1962 to Keith Joseph, another of his Conservative ministers, that "we really have to do something about abolishing smoking"
"Joseph looked quite shocked and said: "You really can't expect to abolish smoking."
Godber replied: "No, but I want to see it reduced to an activity of consenting adults in private."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-george-godber-governments-chief-medical-officer-who-helped-to-establish-the-fledgling-national-1607201.html
He lived long enough to see smoking banned in every enclosed public space.
None of this happened by chance.
Sorry, Bernard, have to disagree with you. Re your earlier comment, I don't think it's true that "countless millions hate secondhand smoke". What is true, I think, is that having got used to 'smoke free' environments a lot of non-smokers prefer them while some (a small minority) have become tiresomely sensitive to even a whiff of smoke. That is the problem we face today.
Common sense suggests serious asthmatics might be advised to avoid smoky environments but how many people are serious asthmatics? Not enough to justify a blanket ban on smoking in every pub and bar. I spent my twenties in pubs and bars and I can only remember one occasion when my eyes watered because of the smoky atmosphere. The problem was over-played and many UK pubs had improved their air filtration systems long before 2006 when MPs voted - for political not health reasons - to ban smoking in the workspace.
As for clothes 'stinking' after a night out in environment where people have been smoking, I never understood that argument. Again, I don't remember it being a problem but if it was how many people wore the same clothes the following day following a night out? Regardless of tobacco smoke, most people sweat, don't they, in a hot or busy pub? When I was younger (much younger!) I even remember coming home smelling of (someone else's) perfume! What did I do? I washed my clothes. It was never a big deal.
I won't repeat all the arguments here but the claim that secondhand smoke is a serious risk to other people's health is, in my view, one of the major scientific frauds of recent history. Smoking bans were not driven by a mass movement. People had the opportunity to vote with their feet and they did. In 2006 for example Wetherspoon was forced to abandon a no-smoking pilot involving 40 pubs because they were losing money as customers chose to go elsewhere. After that the company lobbied for a smoking ban because they wanted a level playing field.
Smoking bans – like all anti-smoking regulations – are driven by a small number of anti-smoking campaigners with the support of a tobacco control industry (much of it state-funded) that is unrepresentative of the public at large.
I would like some moderation in this debate but it has to be on both sides. Unfortunately the debate has become polarised and it's difficult if not impossible to bring the two sides together because there is now so much anger and emotion involved. Ultimately I sympathise with the smokers because I resent the illiberalism and the lies that have been repeated ad nauseum about secondhand smoke in particular. I resent too the intrusion of the state when the question of smoking should be matter for the owner of the property or business.
Finally, it's true that many people have quit smoking because of health concerns or education (which often masquerades as propaganda). But it's also true that millions of people haven't quit and don't want to quit because they enjoy smoking. They have every right to make that choice and they shouldn't be pilloried or made to feel uncomfortable for exercising that right. Equally smokers have a responsibility to be considerate to those around them and if they ignore that responsibility it could be argued that such behaviour is "socially unacceptable" in the same way that it is "socially unacceptable" to (for example) swear in certain situations.
Frankly, what is "socially unacceptable" to one person is not "socially unacceptable" to another. It's a subjective area which is why I asked the question in the first place – to see what people thought. I don't have all the answers and there's plenty to argue about but to everyone who posted a comment, thank you. I appreciate the feedback.
Smoking is not socially unacceptable. It is legal and funds millions to the Exchequer.
It's about time that those hate fuelled charities were forced to attend E&D sessions and British Values classes to realise that their intolerance is abhorrent.
Not only is it abhorrent, it has caused many incidences of loneliness, death and mental health problems.
Why?
Smoking is legal and pays over and over again for purported health issues. What's the problem with these idiots?
“I am bloody well certain anyone who remembers packed clubs/Disco's/restuarants/pubs full of smokers recognise those effects here in the UK back in the day.”
I don't know how old you are, Bernard, but I certainly remember those days, and back then I was a non-smoker. Yes, sometimes, in the early days of going out "socialising," as it were, (though certainly not always) I could smell smoke on my clothes the next morning, but apart from the fact that most of the items I had worn were going into the wash anyway, outer garments, like coats or jackets, which couldn’t be put in the washing machine, I discovered, wouldn’t smell of smoke at all the next day if I simply put them on a hanger and left them hanging outside the wardrobe overnight (which, incidentally, is kinder to one's non-washable clothes anyway, after an evening's wear - smoke or no smoke). It really wasn’t an issue, honestly. And that was back in the day when everybody smoked and I was the only one in my circle of friends who didn’t.
Bernard I could not care less what you think. What I know is that if I am not doing anything illegal by smoking in the street and I am bothered or harassed by someone who thinks they have some form of God given right to harass me - which is illegal, harassment is - then I have a right to take that person to task for abusing me.
However, perhaps you are right. I should just report them to the police and save my comments for court and the evidence against them to secure a conviction for harassment.
Why should I or any other smoker have to put up with it?
I don't know if you are a smokerphobic but you act like one. Your sort does not do the cause of trying to stop people like me from smoking any good. You are a thug if you think that having a go at a smoker in the street or elsewhere is "socially acceptable"
As for me, I don't speak up for smokers. If I did I'd get paid like Simon. My cause is my cause and that is simply to be left alone without harassment.
If you are an anti you comment here only because you can see that there is sense to our argument that we have a right to be left alone and that the only anti-social behaviour is anti-smokerism.
The reality is there is no prospect of smoking carriages ever returning to trains in the UK. Nor will we ever again have smoking rooms inside hospitals. This isn't being defeatist, it's being realistic.
That’s a pretty big call, Simon. History would speak against you. There have been antismoking crusades in the past with all sorts of smoking bans, e.g., early-1900s America and Germany. With society passing through some severe turmoil, those bans were eventually lifted with a different prevailing mentality.
The current mentality that drives antismoking and many other “control” issues will at some point become “out of fashion”. But society will go through quite a few painful shifts in the interim concerning issues that go far beyond smoking. The issue between now and then is to contain as much as possible the damage that these dictatorial nitwits can do.
@Pat Nurse, your hobby of being a professional victim is an unfortunate culture in modern day Britain, its all antis and smokephobic bullies in your world
There is a mature sensible moderate case for changes to the smoking ban which acknowledges changes in what is socially acceptable as Simon describes and I roughly agree with.
I'm afraid whatever I say will lead you into more accusations of bullying/harassment and whatever else you could turn my comments into....its a silly fantasy of yours that I have no interest in feeding, you twisted Simons comments and then you mentioned me and "calling the police", which of couse I never said.
Its bloody stupid and sad that the Forset blog has the likes of you and Nisakiman making comments which are of no help to smokers.
@Misty, those days will never be socially acceptable again, but thanks for remembering the truth and commenting on it
Even Prohibition in America only lasted 13 years before everyone was back in the bars.
A hundred years ago, Bernard, people like you used to find a white feather on their pillow.
Sure, roll over and invite the jackboot on your neck if that's your thing, but don't expect the rest of us to be so craven.
Appeasement doesn't work. Never has, never will.
Bernard, you have done much to demonstrate that you have no clue what’s been happening the last 30 years…… or, for that matter, the last 100 years……. concerning antismoking (misocapny/capnophobia).
Bernard, you’re obviously not familiar but the current antismoking crusade is a prohibition crusade (see Godber Blueprint) through denormalization/stigmatization of smoke/smoking/smokers (and extortionate taxes on tobacco) where the attempt at the very least is to get smoking banned in indoor and all public outdoor areas, i.e., banning smoking in essentially all of the places that people typically smoke. Read the following and tell us if it sounds like bullying to you.
Prohibition by “salami slices”. Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.
The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.
While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette – even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.
At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).