Smokers' rights and civil liberties

The war on smoking in Australia went a step further this week when a council in Sydney banned smoking in public places throughout its business district.

In the context of smoking ‘public places’ used to be shorthand for enclosed public places which was defined as anywhere members of the public might congregate.

That allowed regulators to designate pubs and clubs as ‘public’ spaces even though they are actually private premises that people have a choice to enter - unlike, say, a bank or a post office.

Shortly after the introduction of the smoking ban even private homes were designated as ‘public’ (or work) places for the duration of a visit by a social worker or health visitor, for example.

The aim, as we know, was to ‘protect’ the health of non-smokers who might be exposed to ‘secondhand’ smoke, even though the evidence of harm was (and still is) contentious.

Despite that the definition of public places where smoking must be banned now includes the great outdoors - anywhere, in fact, where another member of the public might be present.

Two reasons are generally cited to justify this.

One, children must be ‘protected’ from the sight of people smoking in case in encourages them to take up the habit.

Two, the health risks of ‘passive’ smoking.

'The children' argument seems especially ridiculous in this instance because I can’t imagine there are many teenagers roaming the business district of North Sydney.

According to the local mayor however:

“I think limiting the exposure of young people to a smoking environment is a really positive thing to do and I think the time will come reasonably soon where smoking wont be allowed at all in public. That’s my hope.”

In other words, this is simply a stepping stone towards something even more restrictive - the eradication of smoking in all 'public' places, indoors and outside, business and residential.

With regard to smoking outside, the passive smoking argument is relatively recent, in the UK at least.

When outdoor smoking bans were first suggested few anti-smokers argued that exposure to tobacco smoke in the open air was a health risk.

Today it benefits their goal of a 'smoke free' society if people believe that smoking outside is a health risk so they generally say nothing, preferring to let the myth of passive smoking extend to outdoor areas.

Credit then to Professor Simon Chapman, one of Australia’s leading anti-smoking campaigners and a man I rarely agree with, for consistently highlighting the absence of evidence concerning the health risks of smoking outside.

Here he is, quoted by the Guardian today:

“All of the evidence about passive smoking being a health risk has been gathered from chronic, long-term exposure in domestic situations or in the workplace,” he says.

“I did a review of the research in about 2012 and there was virtually no research at all conducted about outdoor exposures. The reason for that is that you wouldn’t bother measuring it because it’s so insignificant.

“If you’re walking past someone smoking in the street or a park you’re talking about a transitory, fleeting exposure of no consequence at all.”

Chapman is in good company. Professor Sir Richard Doll, the epidemiologist who first demonstrated the link between smoking and lung cancer, was of a similar mind. According to his obituary in The Times:

When questioned recently on second-hand smoke, he exasperated the anti-smoking lobby by replying: “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”

In contrast the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties takes a rather different view. The Guardian's Michael McGowan reports that:

Pauline Wright, the council president, told me that although she was “a little bit troubled” by the “creeping wowserism” in Australian society, the [smoking] ban is not concerning.

“It’s not an infringement of people’s rights and freedoms. It’s kind of telling people, don’t do it in a public place because science tells us it actually is a danger to people’s health. So, don’t exercise your rights in a way that harms other people.”

It was of course another great 'champion' of civil liberties, Patricia Hewitt, who forced through a comprehensive smoking ban in England after her predecessor John Reid had proposed a compromise that would have allowed smoking in private members' clubs and pubs that didn't serve food.

Prior to becoming a Labour MP and Secretary of State for Health, Hewitt was general secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties, which later rebranded as Liberty.

Curiously smokers' rights are rarely supported by human rights' campaigners. I wrote to Shami Chakrabarti, when she was director of Liberty, asking for help. If I remember (it was a long time ago) I got a noncommittal reply.

I later found myself at a dinner at which she was the guest speaker. I wrote about it here:

During Q&As, Chakrabarti was asked why Liberty didn't support Britain's beleaguered smokers. She wasn't unsympathetic but the gist of her reply was that smokers' rights are relatively trivial compared to other human rights issues and Liberty has to prioritise.

To be fair – and I had forgotten about this – she did side with radio presenter Jon Gaunt when he was sacked by TalkSport for making on-air references to the 'health Nazis' he felt responsible for banning smokers from fostering children in Redbridge.

Generally, though, very few campaigners for civil liberties support the rights of smokers. One of the few who does is Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club.

Josie has written a report for Forest that we shall be publishing very soon. Watch this space.

Comments

[Mariec]

Ban outdoor smoking?
Let them go ahead and criminalise anywhere between a third and a fifth of the adult population.
You cannot beleive the official smoking rate statistics because they are not based on facts they are based on proxies, like pack sales.
One way or another their "new" anti smoker initiatives are going to be a gift to organised crime. We have seen how effective the war on drugs has been, not at all. I recently read that drug use which used to be a very minority activity, has increased yet again. Apparently if you want more people to do something you ban it.
Why do prohibitionists never learn the lessons of the past? Oh yes, it'll be different this time they think, it'll work this time. Reminds me of Albert Einsteins definition of stupidity.