Kicking off discussion on the new blog, here are some comments on the JCR smoking bans. Quite importantly, it is based on being convinced sometime in the past that passive smoking wasn't actually that dangerous to your health - on which I'd happily be proven wrong.
First of all, I'm a non-smoker and I think it is a disgusting habit (except when soundtracked by the famous aria "Casta Diva" in the film '2046'). So, the idea of smoke-free JCRs is appealing.
However, the bans in JCRs across Oxford have been put through using the wrong arguments and by a process which leaves much to be desired. The bans are an example of increasing over-regulation of personal habits which it's sad to see seeping in from national government to student politics - which has traditionally been seen as an arena for more 'radical' ideas.
The main arguments put forward in my own JCR (St Catz) were that -
1. the majority of people don't smoke or don't like smoking
2. a government ban was going to come in soon anyway, and this would 'ease' us into it
3. it makes it more difficult for people who have recently given up to keep off the fags
This is a rather poisonous concept of 'democracy', where all that is required is for a majority to find something unpleasant for a ban to be put in place and for the civil liberties of a minority to be stamped all over. In many cases it is not even a true majority of the JCR who vote to ban smoking as there are often such low turn-outs to meetings.
Similar issues are evident in the government's 'Respect' campaign where ASBOs which can lead to criminal convictions are handed out for the most minor of behavioural nuisances. Without intending to be too melodramatic, justice is being handed over to the most vociferous of the self-perceived victims.
The only genuine case for a ban on smoking can be with conclusive scientific evidence that links passive smoking to health problems - where the rights of non-smokers are directly impinged by smokers.
Lets take back 'tolerance' and 'good manners' from the political arena (particulary from the horiffic Respect campaign) and lets restore the faith in people's respect for each other without intervention - smokers are often happy to stub out a ciggarette or move outside in response to a polite request and non-smokers are often happy to put up with a bit of smoke or to move themselves. I can't believe anyone in college is that intimidating that we need to defer such simple issues to a JCR vote and ban.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As someone who voted for the St Catz smoking ban, and thus one of the ‘most vociferous of the self-perceived victims’, I felt that I should make some reply in the defence of the ban.
Essentially the case is that there is a well documented helath risk form second hand smoking. The US Surgeon General in June 2006 concluded that that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS. This conclusion adds to the weight of scientific evidence including a review by the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) in the UK, published in 2004, which stated that “no infant, child or adult should be exposed to second-hand smoke” and that SHS is a substantial health hazard.
Evidence about the health impacts of SHS exposure has built up over decades and has included comprehensive reviews by the US National Research Council, reports by the US Surgeon General, the Californian Environmental Protection Agency, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health in the UK. The WHO also recognises there is no safe level of exposure to SHS.
Also, a special effort was made to ensure as wide a constituency as possible had the opportunity to vote. It was precisely because the meeting was poorly attended that the vote was conducted online, giving everyone the opportunity to vote.
We are technically ahead of the government by passing these bans. Many were enacted prior to it being discussed as UK law (not for St Catz though.)
It's nice to head down to a bar and not come back stinking of smoke. It's nice not having to deal with watery eyes. Do these niceties contribute enough to limit the rights of others to smoke?
From the passive smoking direction, there is some fairly strong evidence to link passive smoking to health concerns, and the discomfort of others is clearly obvious (have you ever coughed when someone has blown smoke at you? That's probably your body telling you that smoking is bad.)
However, do we require a 'democratic' vote to limit our freedom in order to benefit the majority?
There is a careful balance in place, where we have to respect the wishes of the masses, without 'shouting down' the minority. Do we rank the democratic process based on sheer numbers of people voting, or do we try to ensure that 'freedom' is kept by all, even at the discomfort of others?
'Health risk' can mean something infinitessimally small though, as far as I know it is something like 0.1% increased chance of lung cancer. Surely you have to consider the extent because if you go down the route of banning things that are of such a small risk to others then lots of other small behavioural things would come under consideration for bans.
Ben's point is very interesting though, in that it raises the question of the position of science in this process of weighing up freedoms. People's perception of the health risk and the scientific evidence may be very different but which should we rely on?
The health risk seem largely substantiated to me. The government-sponsored Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, stated that “no infant, child or adult should be exposed to second-hand smoke” and that SHS is a substantial health hazard. The WHO also recognises there is no safe level of exposure to SHS.
Even short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow.
Moreover, Professor Konrad Jamrozik, formerly of Imperial College London, has estimated that domestic exposure to second-hand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older.
I would acknowledge that there is a balance of rights between the majority and the minority. However, when there is a substantiated health risk, I think the balance should be in favour of protecting the health of the majority, whose health is at risk, rather than the comfort of those who are causing that risk.
Post a Comment