As with any new year there are new laws going in to effect around the globe. Today I managed to stumble across an article on CBC News that was posted through Twitter by @SocialPsych called, aptly enough, “Spain’s tough anti-smoking law takes effect.” As someone who smoked for many years, but thankfully quit about 7 years ago, I am always intrigued to see the social trends in smoking, and even more so I am interested to see how governments, especially outside of the United States, handle it. When I was in the US Navy and had the chance to travel the world, I found that the acceptance of smoking was quite common. Anyone and everyone, and for that matter just about anywhere, was smoking. Of course, so was I so it was very convenient. Now, as a non-smoker and a father of a small child, I am more aware of smoking and of course have my own dislikes revolving around it. Like most non-smokers, I hate walking in to a building and having to walk through a cloud of smoke as the smokers congregate outside of the door to “burn one” for a minute. I also dislike going to restaurants where smoking is still allowed; there’s just nothing enjoyable about eating my food while breathing in smoke. Even being in a line somewhere with a person or two smoking around me can really cause me some irritation, especially when I have my wife and son with me. But with all of that being said, I think I have a hard time agreeing with the government trying to control things in a manner such as Spain.
While I think we all agree that smoking is unhealthy, and lays an undue burden on those that are non-smokers, I’m not sure that the government, any government, stepping in and banning it makes much sense. If it is found to be such a nuisance and health hazard, shouldn’t it just be made illegal? If not, then I think there should be slightly better choices made for how to deal with smokers and associated problems. As one commenter said on the aforementioned article explains, it might be a better idea to impose certain penalties for being a smoker instead of trying to outright ban it. A reasonable penalty could include something such as higher insurance rates, even when on a group policy; this should be considerably higher, and there should definitely be testing yearly to verify. What about restaurants, parks, and other public facilities? I think it should be the choice of those that own the business as to whether or not they allow smoking, and as human beings with an independent brain we should be able to make our own choice as to whether or not we are comfortable in that environment. This is of course with one caveat: places that allow smoking should be required to post visibly and publicly that they allow smoking. This would be either on the outside of the facility, or on the sign. This would save those of us who don’t want to patron a place like that from even having to park and get out to determine if they allow smoking or not. If their business suffers because of allowing smoking, then they would need to make the conscious decision whether or not to continue to allow smoking in the facility.
Obviously I don’t believe that smoking is a good decision, but nonetheless a decision it still is. While governments have the responsibility to make sure that the financial burden falls on the correct parties, and that people follow laws, I’m just not sure that I can personally support the idea of taking away a decision from someone on something that is considered legal. As I said before, if it is truly considered to be as dangerous as we all know it is, outlaw it completely and put it in the same category as any other drug. Otherwise discourage it, educate on it, place warnings on packages, and penalize for it as a poor health decision, but don’t try to control it if it is still a choice.
PsychoSoAnt 