Smoking is bad for you ...

...but it should not be criminal offence to smoke.

Published on July 6, 2007 By adnauseam In Current Events

I know all about smoking. It is bad for you and it is bad for others who have to put up with second-hand foul air. It is a habit that became very popular after the first World War and was deemed socially acceptable right up to the seventies. The figures that show cancer and emphysema fatalities from smoking are not disputed. They are fact and the healthy eighties and nineties saw a downward trend in smoking to levels where only 25% of Brits , 25% of South Africans,18% of Americans and 16% of Australians smoked in 2005. (note: these figures were based on estimations of tobacco consumption and are probably slightly lower now).

The problem about smoking (for me), is that tobacco companies still continue to advertise (albeit in a more limited fashion), that they still provide employment for thousands of employees,and, their products are still freely available.

Now, I, a person with a sense of logical thought and a penchant for wanting 2 + 2 to equal 4 , want to know why cigarettes are not banned entirely. I mean it would prevent incidents like those this week in Britain where a pub smoker was locked up and Charles Kennedy (former libdem leader), was cautioned for smoking on a train. Is a smoker such a criminal that he should be locked up? It's the law you'll say. I'll tell you why the law is an ass (UK speak), a dumb ass (USA speak):

3 weeks ago I stood in the queue at passport control at Heathrow. The lady in front of me was having her passport checked. At the risk of boring you, the conversation went like this:

Passport officer: " What is your destination?"
Lady: "Jamaica."
Passport officer: " You arrived from Jamaica in 2001 and were given a six month visa to stay in the UK. It is now 2007. Can you account for that?"
Lady: "I must have overstayed. I didn't notice the expiry date. I'm sorry."
Passport officer: " OK, let's go and check this out."

Sheesh--and they want to lock up smokers?

My message to Britain is this: You cannot control your borders but you want to lock up smokers. Where are you're priorities? No wonder there are thousands of illegal immigrants in Britain. I shake my head.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Jul 06, 2007

! That was the UK? I guess we have a lot in common with them than most know about!

Great Article, and a great point!

Furry Canary

on Jul 06, 2007

'... but it should not be a criminal offence to smoke'
It is not a criminal offence to smoke per se. However, under some circumstances third parties are put at risk, and there is a cogent argument for criminal measures in such cases. What would you propose we do otherwise with those who, despite knowing the rules and regulations, elect to smoke in petrol stations, in public buildings, in taxis or buses, on aeroplanes, in hospitals, in closed cars containing young children - give them medals for exercising their individual freedoms?

'Sheesh--and they want to lock up smokers?'
Two points here. Firstly, although you describe yourself as 'a person with a sense of logical thought', unless I'm missing something there is absolutely no logical parallel between these two scenarios. Basically, you appear to be saying that smokers should never be subjected to criminal charges because there are other people out there who commit worse crimes. If that's logical, then why don't we take it to its logical conclusion and decriminalise everything except serial murder?
Secondly, there appears to be a tacit assumption in your post that the person who overstayed her visa was not going to be subjected to criminal charges subsequently. If the customs officer had said, 'That's all right madam, on your way' then you might have had a (still tenuous and illogical) point to make. But surely the customs officer saying, 'Let's go and check this out' meant that this was a problem, and might well have led to the eventual laying of criminal charges. At the very least, can you be sure that this was not the case?

adnauseam

on Jul 07, 2007

To Furry Canary,

Your points are taken but I simply wanted to assert that there should be more pressing priorities in the UK and smokers are not a priority! The fact that the lady may have been charged or not is neither here nor there. She had been living illegally in a country for over 5 years, undetected, possibly drawing benefits. She could have been a terrorist. If you think that living in a country for 5 years, illegally, palls in comparison to a smoky atmosphere somewhere, then that's your prerogative.

I have just read today that 200 000 Brits have given information to the tax man on tax evaders (some of whom are family and friends).

It makes me wonder whether next time I catch a sly smoke outside the Oaks near Oxford Street that there may be a spy around!

Furry Canary

on Jul 07, 2007

'Your points are taken'
But your response suggests the opposite.

'I simply wanted to assert that there should be more pressing priorities in the UK'
Would you also abolish charges for speeding, drunkenness in a public place, trespass, dumping, and all other supposedly petty crimes merely because they are not as serious as overstaying a visa? The law covers all crimes from minor to major - it's not an either / or mechanism.

'If you think that living in a country for 5 years, illegally, palls in comparison to a smoky atmosphere somewhere, then that's your prerogative.'
Did I say that? (Rhetorical.) To reiterate my earlier point, there is no logical connection between this woman's crime in overstaying her visa and action against smokers breaking the law. Unless you're actually suggesting that any savings made by not prosecuting a handful of miscreant smokers would enable the authorities to take more timely action against people overstaying their visas, which would make you more naive than I had given you credit for.

Dr Guy

on Jul 07, 2007

'Your points are taken'
But your response suggests the opposite.

No, actually, I took it to mean "they are re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic". A necessary endeavor, except when you are sinking.

Perhaps less weight should be given to minding what people do legally, and more to what people are doing illegaly.

Furry Canary

on Jul 07, 2007

'Perhaps less weight should be given to minding what people do legally, and more to what people are doing illegaly.'

Oh I agree. But remember that nobody gets prosecuted just for smoking. At very little cost, a very small number of people get prosecuted for smoking when and where it is illegal, generally because their actions put innocent third parties at risk. And so they should.

adnauseam

on Jul 08, 2007

" There is no logical connection between this woman's crime of overstaying her visa and action against smokers breaking the law."

Ah, Furry Canary, it is obvious that you are a lucid, intelligent commentator and I hope to debate with you on a regular basis. However, (the great however!), I see a perfectly logical connection if one considers that border policing is extremely lax in comparison to "petty" policing--and petty policing is rife in nanny Britain, not always by the police. Petty policing relates to minor laws like smoking in public, dumping litter on side roads etc. Genuine policing relates to protection of the public. There is a difference and there is also a logical connection . I am saying that you should guard your borders MORE and worry LESS about Joe Smith having a sneaky puff. The problem in Britain is that you require a person to pick up his dog's poo when they go for a walk ('Oi,'says neighbour Brown from behind half curtains, 'pick that up or I'll report ya.'), but you don't do anything about immigration control.

The UK allows Nigerians, Somalians, Ethiopians, Zimbabweans, et al, into Britain (legally or illegally );some form gangs, some scrounge off welfare, some are deeply into drugs, prostitution and theft and some-few-- are honest. Deny it and tell me why the little smoker should pay! It is a question of priorities and that is where the connection is.

CharlesCS

on Jul 09, 2007

While I understand adnauseam's point I have to side with Furry on this one. You can't compare a thing as being locked up for smoking and border control. What you are asking is for the authorities to spend more time watching the borders for people you believe are gang members, welfare scroungers, drug users, prostitutes and the thief's and ignore those who break minor laws. I have to wonder if the border problem is more important, why create these petty laws for petty crimes? Why should I get a ticker for going 10 miles above the speed limit when there are possible terrorist in this country? Why should a child be arrested for stealing a candy bar when there are rapist and child molesters lurking about? See my point?

I'm a firm believer that if a law is passed for a legit reason, that enforcing it is a good thing. People call places nanny states but when crime grows they scream why the Gov't is not doing anything about it. I can't stand the notion that just because our rights as Americans are held so high that criminals can actually get away with crimes just because either a cop mishandles a search warrant or the lawyer finds mistakes and gets them off.

adnauseam

on Jul 09, 2007

To Charles SC1,

I don't see your point at all. There has to be a set of laws to govern people whether it be traffic related, petty theft and so on. I understand that. What I'm saying, over and over again, is that if you are going to over-police people for the minor offences why are you UNDER-POLICING the major things, the things that threaten our lives? Why are you letting people into the country without proper research and checks. See Google News.co.uk (TODAY )for a further report on this.

Furry Canary

on Jul 10, 2007

'I am saying that you should guard your borders MORE and worry LESS about Joe Smith having a sneaky puff.'
But unless you can demonstrate that changing one has an impact on the other, you have established no connection whatsoever, and are simply lumping together two entirely unconnected observations to support your agenda.

'Genuine policing relates to protection of the public.'
Fair enough. And, as I pointed out above, most - if not all - circumstances under which people can actually be prosecuted for smoking relate to when they put innocent third parties at risk.

'Deny it and tell me why the little smoker should pay!'
That's just ludicrous. The 'little smoker' (whatever that might mean) DOESN'T pay. Smokers pay no greater cost for immigration violations than non-smokers.

'The UK allows Nigerians, Somalians, Ethiopians, Zimbabweans, et al, into Britain (legally or illegally );some form gangs, some scrounge off welfare, some are deeply into drugs, prostitution and theft and some-few-- are honest.'

Ah, now here perhaps we get to the nub of your gripe. There are three possible scenarios:

(1) What you say may be demonstrably true. In this case, you will have to hand independent statistics to back up your allegations. You will be able to detail the frequency with which members of such immigrant groups arrive illegally, that with which they form gangs, claim welfare, take drugs, are involved in prostitution, undertake theft etc. And you will be able to demonstrate that these percentages are significantly (in the statistical sense) greater than those relating to other ethnic groups / the population at large. You will be able to cite precisely how 'few' members of such groups are honest (qualifying precisely what you mean by 'honest', of course), and, again, to show that this figure is significantly lower than for other groups / the population as a whole. Let's call this the 'informed' scenario.

(2) Such evidence for your claims as may exist derives from organisations with an ideological axe to grind. Let's call this the 'BNP' scenario.

(3) Your claims may simply have been invented by yourself to support your initial position (or, more accurately, positions); a position of not enjoying limitations being placed upon your fundamental 'freedoms' as a smoker on the one hand, and a deep antipathy towards those who - to borrow a phrase of yours from another thread - produce 'foul madrassas' (sic) on the other. The latter of which, of course, derives from pre-judging (note that word) the tendencies of particular people in the absence of any factual information or knowledge. We can keep it sounding British, and call this one the 'Johnny Foreigner' scenario ... but there are many other far less palatable labels it might warrant.

So, which is it? I know where I'm putting my money!

Furry Canary

on Jul 10, 2007

''The problem in Britain is that you require a person to pick up his dog's poo when they go for a walk ('Oi,'says neighbour Brown from behind half curtains, 'pick that up or I'll report ya.')'

Toxocariasis, a disease carried by parasitic worms, is just one of several that can be contracted through contact with dog faeces.

'One way of acquiring a perspective on this question is to imagine an average-sized class of school children. It is likely that three, that is about 10%, of them have suffered ill-health due to toxocariasis. In a school of 1000 pupils it is likely that 40 of them will have identifiable toxocaral infestation and some performance impairment as a result. Of all children in the country, an estimated 200 a year will suffer ’visual impairment’ due to toxocariasis. Some of those will lose the sight of one eye.'
Source: Canine Crisis Council (www.ccc.uk.com)

So, is neighbour Brown merely being a busybody, or is he doing the community a service? Put it another way, superfluous law courtesy of 'nanny Britain', or significant legal safeguard against prevalent health risk?

Before you decide, you might want to talk to some of the children who have suffered visual impairment due to toxocariasis - or to their parents.

Dr Guy

on Jul 10, 2007

Toxocariasis, a disease carried by parasitic worms, is just one of several that can be contracted through contact with dog faeces.

So in the end, the invaders will not have to worry about soiling their shoes as they march down the street to Buckingham Palace.

Furry Canary

on Jul 10, 2007

'So in the end, the invaders will not have to worry about soiling their shoes as they march down the street to Buckingham Palace.'
So having a law against dogs defecating in the street compromises immigration control how exactly, doc?

Dr Guy

on Jul 10, 2007

So having a law against dogs defecating in the street compromises immigration control how exactly, doc?

Did I say that?

But perhaps before you start rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, you should make sure the boat has not sprung a leak.

Furry Canary

on Jul 10, 2007

'Did I say that?'
Well, if you didn't, I'm sure I don't know what you DID say. I guess you must be far too clever for me.

'But perhaps before you start rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, you should make sure the boat has not sprung a leak.'
It's a poor metaphor that equates preventing illness / blindness in children with rearranging deckchairs. Actually, it's a particularly poor metaphor for a second reason too. The law against allowing one's dog to defecate in the street has been on the British statute books for years. For it to be abolished would require significant time, effort and resources on the part of both the government and the judiciary. Far less bother to leave it alone. To spend one's time repealing such a minor law at a time like this, when - apparently - the 'invaders' are readying to 'march down the street to Buckingham Palace' etc. etc etc. (oh, I do love a fertile imagination) ... well, surely THAT would constitute rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!