I hate inconsiderate smokers (i.e. almost every single smoker).
Any smoking that forces others to smoke passively against their will can be admonished with the principle that any wrongness should cease. From there, one merely has to prove such inconsiderate smoking is wrong for the argument to prevail. Even though it seems obvious that it is wrong, it still seems prudent to elaborate on why it is wrong, for those who find it less obvious. So, I submit inconsiderate smoking is wrong because it causes rational discomfort in the short term and is detrimental to health in both the short and long term.
Some of its potential short-term detrimental effects are:
- Inducing potentially lethal asthma attacks
- Inducing a significant portion heart attacks
- Irritation causing runny noses, burning eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, perceived asphyxiation
- Craving by the passive recipient
And potential long term ones:
- A plethora of cancers
- Increased asthma likelihood in unborn children
- Risk of premature birth
- Causing and exacerbation of asthma
- Pneumonia
- Sudden infant death syndrome
- Lung infection
- Bronchitis
- Ear, nose and throat infection
- Heart disease
- Crohn's disease
- If I'm not mistaken, emits carbon
And I'm certain there's more. To be fair, there are some beneficial effects, but that's irrelevant due to the nature of the debate. The fact that there's any detrimental effects that are forced upon passive smokers without them wanting it nullifies any of its beneficial effects (which may be reduced anyway by virtue of the smoking being passive as opposed to active).
So, having established that it is wrong and should stop, what should be done? In an ideal community, people would be free to smoke anywhere and force others to smoke passively so long as the passive smoker were not adverse to it. However, this is of course unfeasible, as it is impossible to tell if the passive smoker would object, they may be too scared to do so and humans as they are now are almost invariably not trustworthy and ethical enough.
We can diminish these flaws with the suggestion of a society where smoking is permitted at any time other than when it would make another person smoke passively. However, if this were also too impractical, a general ban on smoking in public places would almost definitely be more suitable.
So if it's as simple as banning or limiting smoking in public places, why doesn't the UK government institute such a policy? The only possible reasons I can think of off the top of my head pertain to money and to appease smokers.
Perhaps the government fears fewer cigarettes will be purchased if they ban smoking in public, resulting in less revenue for other areas. This money comes from taxes on tobacco products, but why couldn't it merely come from an increased general tax? If this would not be possible due to significant tax rises, why can't the government inform the public of the estimated rises and flaws in such a plan? Even if it wouldn't seem practical from an economic perspective to ban smoking in public, the issue should at least be acknowledged and the plan considered.
The other reason, that of the government fearing unrest should they ban smoking in public places is a poor reason not to do so. One of the responsibilities of the government is to enforce justice. The government has laws against unjustified murder, and even though it cannot stop all of them and deal with all its perpetrators, it does so when it can, as it has a responsibility to do as unjustified murder is an injustice. Similarly, the government has a responsibility to stop the wrong of forcing people to unwillingly smoke passively.
Yes it doesn't. It's issues like this that make me question the integrity of our 'democracy'. Sure, we can vote for who we have in power, but we don't get to vote on perhaps the more important things: the issues that actually affect us on a day-to-day basis. If all democracy is is an equal right to vote for a party, then it is not enough. For consistent democratic governing on such far-reaching, day-to-day, issues affecting most people that most people want changed, the public's opinion must be considered.
Many people seem to think 'democracy' gives equal power to everybody. Well apparently it doesn't. There was no vote to go to war in Iraq. No vote on the current, limited smoking 'ban', no vote on withdrawing from Iraq despite common opinion supporting such a sentiment. At the end of the day we are lumbered with choosing the lesser of evils and letting them dictate, instead of taking the reins ourselves and deciding the direction and future of the country. We are not equal. The government enforces neither public opinion nor total justice. We're a long way from true power of the people, and not as far as we think from despotism.
