David Aaronovitch on the smoking ban:
In a way it is astonishing that it has taken this long for smoking to be banned in restaurants; there are still places so foul from the stench and that make your eyes water so much, that I only have to enter the bloody door to know that this is not the joint for me.
In which case, you turn around and go elsewhere.
I did it to others for many years – fugged up their space for them – unable as I was to stop myself. I kicked the habit just in time to avoid being a pavement johnnie, and I’m grateful for that. So I do feel for present addicts (tho not for those who insist that they “enjoy” the habit – bollocks), and have havered between thinking there should be a public ban, and believing in segregation so that the benighted can choose to act madly.
Now the ban is here, though, I find it hard to regret it.
This Alcoholics Anonymous stuff – I was a sinner, hurting myself and others, but now I’ve seen the light – is all a bit over the top, isn’t it? Of course smoking’s enjoyable. If it was health-neutral, I’d still be puffing away, no problem. There’s something slightly offensive about that whole patronising approach – the assumption that smokers are pathetic addicts who are just fooling themselves when they claim they get pleasure out of it.
My point isn’t that there’s no truth in this. Of course there is. We know nicotine is addictive, never mind the whole nervous what-to-do-with-my-hands-in-this-tense-social-situation stuff which adds to the compulsion. But when you start going down this road, where do you stop? The more we find out about neurology and psychology the more we discover all these compulsions and genetic predispositions and all the rest of it, and behaviour which used to be seen as a matter of moral choice gets therapeutised as a manifestation of some syndrome or other. Antisocial bastard? He’s got mild Asperger’s Syndrome. Greedy pig? A compulsive eating disorder. Arrogant sod? Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Carry on and ultimately, at some level where Buddhism meets neurophysiology, maybe all our decisions are illusory, and the active responsible agent who’s supposed to be making all these personal choices just disappears.
It’s no way to run a society though. The only way for the whole deal to work is to make the assumption that we’re all (given the usual age and mental competence provisos) responsible moral agents and take it from there. Which means, as far as smoking is concerned, provide the public with the medical information, and let them make their own choices. As far as non-smokers are concerned, that means deciding whether they’ll be fussy and refuse to eat or drink in any establishment which allows smoking anywhere on the premises, or whether they’re happy with places which have smoking and non-smoking areas, or whether they think the whole thing about second-hand smoke is hugely exaggerated, and are quite happy to mingle with smokers. Same for bar-staff, waiters, etc.. That’s what they used to call a free country.
Mick Hartley 
Leave a comment