Tobacco.org

YOUNG: A smoking ban? Fine, but only with choice 

Never put it beyond Lebanon to adopt a terrible idea just because it arrives from abroad. The country is now debating whether to impose a smoking ban in public places, and anti-smoking groups can smell blood.

The Middle East was always considered resistant to such an innovation. However, last year both Syria and Turkey, countries with high percentages of smokers in the population, banned smoking inside public facilities, and Lebanese parliamentarians have said they would discuss a smoking ban in the coming months. Oddly, one of those who announced this was Atef Majdalani, doctor, but also a committed cigar smoker.

I share Majdalani’s fervor... but only when it comes to Cohibas. . . .

But the authorities in most countries never allow choice, and their favoring the rights of non-smokers over smokers is to a large extent the result of the smoking-ban activists’ ability to inject moralism into their arguments. “If you light up in my presence,” the non-smokers will intone, “you are killing me.” But if that is true, then surely there are many other similar examples of unintentional homicide. When I start my car, am I not also contributing to someone’s early demise? . . .

But there is a more pernicious side to the non-smoking argument that very much leads to potential intrusion into people’s lives: that by lighting up, smokers increase health costs across society, therefore non-smokers have the right to protest the actions of smokers. If we follow this rationale, though, we might soon find that any activity deemed “unhealthy”, such as drinking one glass too many, overeating, or even cooking with butter rather than margarine, becomes fair game for health missionaries.

Jump to full article »