The Independent highlights the differering view of the leadership contenders on smoking bans.
I remember last year I wrote to Lib Dem News taking colleagues to task over excessive enthusiasm for a smoking ban. My letter provoked five responses, all hostile, a personal record.
My concern is that Liberal Democrats, while keen to proclaim commitment to freedom in the abstract, are rather keen to ban things they disapprove of in the specific. So our commitment to personal liberty, even in the social rather than economic sphere, seems highly suspect.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we have to be total wacky libertarians, let alone die in the last ditch defending tobacco companies. It's just that when a campaign gets under way to ban or restrict this or that, I would expect Lib Dems to take a questioning and sceptical role rather than that of cheerleader. Sadly, it was noticeable that one of the biggest rounds of applause given by conference in Blackpool was to Nicol Stephen's assurance that the Lib Dems in Scotland had got agreement for a total ban on smoking in public places, not John Reid's uneasy compromise.
With regard to a smoking ban, I suspect the problem will be of accelerating the decline of rural village pubs and urban backstreet locals. The large vertical-drinking emporia will cope with a smoking ban and the young people who visit them will feel little embarrassment about standing around outside having a fag.
By contrast community pubs, which often double up as shops or post offices, may find the regulars who sustain them drifting away if it is no longer possible to sit in peace and comfort to have a drink and a smoke with friends. And of course if more of these local pubs do close down, you can bet that Lib Dem councillors and MPs will lament the loss of important local amenities, even as they congratulate themselves on supporting the smoking ban.
To declare my interest – I am currently having another go at giving up smoking. But being married to a non-smoker, I have probably not had a cigarette in a public place that might be covered by the ban for many years now. I actively seek out the non-smoking bits of pubs and restaurants. A smoking ban is not a matter of fundamental liberal principle. It is perhaps an idea whose time has come. But I would like to see our party be a little more aware of the poential drawbacks. Our attitudes to it do say something about whether we are at heart libertarian or authoritarian.
4 comments:
I would agree as well. But the problem is not in this piece of legislation per se, which is genuinely arguable, but other things such as licensing laws, smacking and other issues where the onus is far more on personal responsibility.
To be what I view as liberal any ban on smoking should be such that it bans smoking where there are people who have no choice but to be there. Current thinking seems to say this is applicable to pubs as the staff have no choice but to be in a smokey environment (whether this is true or not is a subject of great debate, can they just get another job or not?)
In this case, having seperate a smoking section which staff do not have to enter or can enter with sufficient protection from the smoke.
A ban on all smoking is illiberal. An individual adult should have the right to decide whether they want to smoke, just as they do with drinking or eating chocolate oranges.
We are not, and should never be, in the business of policing people's personal habits and choices, we leave that to the other parties.
Lastly: We cannot ban something because we find it unpleasent. The only reason I can support any sort of ban in enclosed places is that there is strong evidence that the effects on the health of breathing in second hand smoke are harmful, and that there are situations where people cannot avoid being in that place. That is the measure that should be used:
1) Does it cause demonstrable harm?
2) Are people forced to be exposed to it?
I agree with Steve Guy's original comments. My experience of going into pubs is that very often bar staff are keen to get away from the bar area to have a crafty fag.
Of course it only takes one person whose preferred occupation is to work in a bar, but who really hates the smoke for the issues of having no choice to arise.
But as more and more pubs designate more and more of their internal space as no smoking I wonder how much of a problem this really is.
And what about public nudity?
I have no problem with naturism, and thought the bloke walking the country nude was brave and principled. Wouldn't do it myself, but not for me to condemn another. Bare naked flesh. Who does it hurt?
Or pornographic magazines placed in shopfronts?
You get this in most EU countries, why not here? Where's the problem? What's wrong with being naked?
Or al fresco sex?
Fun. With the right person, of course.
If somebody does something which affects the comfort of a class of Her Majesty's subjects, there is good precedent for the state stepping in to put a stop to it.
My confort is affected by my neighbour revving his motorbike when trying to fix it. We should stop that?
The local fishermen cause a stink of fish on the harbour, it discomforts my nose, should we stop that to?
Precedent doesn't make something liberal. There's precedent for hanging, we don't do that anymore.
Post a Comment