No smoke without desire
Andy Marshall writes: Hi. I'm the author of There's No Smoke Without Desire, a self help course for those who smoke but who wish they could stop. I smoked for 37 years and for many of them I right proper enjoyed it. For some others I right proper didn't and it was fucking me over.
I am very pro everyone's right to smoke. In my book I do not advocate giving up smoking, I advocate doing just what you fucking well like. Smokers smoke because they want to smoke. They stop when they stop wanting to smoke. My book is about knowing what you want and getting what you want.
On the matter of smoking in pubs (something I cover in great depth in my book as it’s a stumbling point for most smokers trying to give up), surely the answer to this is far more simple than “I don't smoke - therefore you shouldn't” vs. “I smoke therefore you can fuck off”. Surely the answer lies in air conditioning. Make pubs use air conditioning to an agreed standard then you can smoke and I can enjoy a smoke free environment.
Smoking is simply a matter of choice. If you want to smoke, smoke; if you want to stop, stop. Everyone has the right to do what he wants as long as that doesn't impact prejudicially on others. If you don't know how to get what you want, read my book: http://www.tnswd.com/
posted by Simon Clark @ 17:04
6 comments
6 Comments:
Smoking by definition impacts prejudicially on others. I have an absolute right, in a public place, not to breathe other people's smoke. That right supercedes your right to smoke in public places. It's as simple as that. You are adding a noxious substance to the air and I have the right to be protected from that. I shouldn't have to ask you not to smoke. It should be a given that you won't in my presence. Smoke by all means, but not around me.
Talk about absolute rights is, as Jeremy Bentham said, "nonsense on stilts".
Bentham was correct too, for rights are forensic entities, and hence, before laws are introduced, one equally doesn't have, or not have, the right to do anything, although one may have the freedom to do something.
An appeal to some kind of natural or absolute order of rights is a tactic frequently used by people who are usually struggling to achieve some political aim - but one's thinking should not be beguiled by such talk for it is both erroneous and misleading.
Moreover, Jim, such a draconian style of demands with regard to YOUR freedom is hardly likely to be met with a positive response from others, and it is an unfortunate aspect of the current propaganda campaign concerning environmental tobacco smoke that some people now think that they have the "right" to address others without common courtesy.
"I have an absolute right, in a public place ..."
An absolute right? What other absolute rights exist? The right to live in a town without noise from trafic? The right to live in clean air, not polluted by cars, industry? The right to walk in the middle of the road?
"That right supercedes your right to smoke in public places. It's as simple as that"
Why? Why is your "right" superior to mine? Is this like Animal farm? Are you more "equal" than I? If so, who decreed it be so?
I think as a large contributor to the Governments coffers by way of tobacco duty, I think that gives me an "absolute right" to be able to carry out a perfectly LEGAL passtime. I think my contribution to the health service (remember that if you are ever in hospital Jim) etc gives me more "absolute rights". I personally would not like to be in the presence of Jim even if I didnt smoke, he doesnt appear to be a reasonale balanced person. Maybe some of the anti-smoking brigade should stop posting comments on a pro-smoking site - I dont bother anti-smoking sites. I'm sure they would find more kindred spitits on the anti-smoking sites and could whinge and whine till their hearts content and organise an "insult a smoker" malitia! then again I think they have already done that. We pay the government hansomely for our enjoyment. Does this give us more of an "absolute right" Jim? I dont think personal insults should be made by non-smokers its just rude and ignorant.
Jim - you need to hang a sign around your neck then to let everyone know you are a non smoker and do not want people to smoke around you - we are not psychic!!
As for rights - I do agree that non smokers should have the right to socialise in an environment acceptable to them, however I do not believe and never will that that should mean that smokers cannot socialise anywhere with their friends.
We are supposed to be a democracy, we are supposed to have choices and WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED BE IN NOR DID THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT GET VOTED IN AS A DICTATORSHIP. This does not only apply to the smoking/non smoking debate.
Why the hell people cannot just have choices that would keep everyone happy beats me completely. There should most definitely be pubs that are non smoking. Already the majority of cafes and restaurants are. Likewise, there should be pubs, cafes, restaurants, etc that are pro smoking.
I have not been to the cinema or theatre for many years - why? Because I cannot smoke. I do not drink and therefore do not frequent pubs, but my husband and I get our pleasure from a meal out each week. We are lucky at the moment as our local restaurant does permit smoking but when this ban comes in we will have nowhere to go where we can relax and enjoy ourselves.
I can see a far greater burden on the NHS when people like us cannot actually go out to relax and unwind. I can also see far more people having time off work with stress and depression and far more marriages and partnerships breaking up as a result of this totally draconian and dictatorial law.
Post a Comment
<< Home