The new outcasts

For some people today, cigarette smoking is the most heinous of sins. CHRISTOPHER HURST tries to look at both sides of the question.

AS a young man I used to carry a packet of cigarettes around with me. I would occasionally light up, in company (it was a "social habit") or alone for stimulation. I was weaned from the habit on my first visit to India in the 1960s: I bought some fags in what resembled, and was doubtless modelled on, a "Craven A" packet, and, after smoking only a few, developed a wet cough.

I have never wanted to smoke since but I would like to think that whether one smokes or not - as distinct from where one smokes - is a private matter. On the one side, there is the need for an easy means of calming the nerves or stimulating the brain, and to satisfy one's craving. On the other side there is the expense and the effect upon health. But consider the strange message conveyed by my picture, taken in a London bus.

The bigger notice acquires much greater significance when the smaller one is read with it. No strict moralist would admit that smoking on a bus is a serious offence, however unpleasant the smoker's fellow-passengers may find it. But to travel without a ticket is theft - a crime under all jurisdictions and an offence against all moral codes. Not only that; the fare-dodger's fellow- passengers will certainly be angry with anyone who dishonestly travels free when they themselves have paid. So how do we explain the penalty for causing a not very serious nuisance being 200 times greater than that for defrauding the bus company?

A few years ago I saw in the "situations vacant" section of The Bookseller an advertisement for an executive in a well-known publishing firm, Transworld, at the bottom of which it said "Non- smoker preferred." I wrote a letter to the Editor complaining that this was as discriminatory as saying that white, male, able- bodied or heterosexual applicants for the post were preferred, and the company replied, conceding that these words had appeared in error. But not long afterwards the same company placed a similar advertisement, with the words "No smoker need apply." I wrote again, but the letter was not printed. What if the best qualified applicant for the job was a smoker, or had to lie in order to get it? The advertisement seemed to testify to the existence in our society of licensed intolerance mixed with hysteria.

This unholy mixture erupted in December 2000, when the University of Nottingham set up a new International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, backed by sponsorship amounting to œ3.8 million from British American Tobacco (BAT). The centre will study the social and environmental responsibilities of

multinational companies. The University's Vice-Chancellor praised BAT's "genuine commitment to engaging constructively, and to supporting higher education and the development of management skills-bases in the countries where it operates" - i.e. "Third World" countries. BAT will sponsor a chair and directorship, a visiting professor from a developing country, and competitive scholarships from developing countries where it has major corporate interests. In its own statement, BAT said: "We are very serious about demonstrating responsible behaviour in an industry seen as controversial."

Just how controversial can be seen from the abuse that rained down on the University. This outburst came from the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH): "BAT's products kill hundreds of thousands of people a year internationally, it is accused of racketeering, and is being sued by several governments for a vast array of misdemeanours. It is baffling to see how this corporate behaviour makes the university think that this is an acceptable sponsor for a school of ethics." "Racketeering" refers to allegations that the tobacco industry has connived at smuggling.

Yes, smoking can cause lung cancer, heart disease and chronic bronchitis, but no one can say it causes aggressive and brutish behaviour in public and in private, avoidable traffic accidents as well as various forms of ill-health, as alcohol does. Tobacco companies are obliged by law to print on their packaging and advertisementsnts a statement that smoking can cause serious damage to one's health. No similar warnings are to be found on bottles or cans of liquor.

The mission statement of ASH first asserts that "120,000 people die each year in the United Kingdom from smoking-related diseases, by far the largest single preventable cause of death." Tobacco is also, it claims, "a major cause of poverty and health inequalities." (So is alcohol.) Now to the campaign manifesto proper:

"ASH is working to secure public, media, parliamentary, local and national government support for a comprehensive programme to tackle the epidemic of tobacco-related diseases. This includes:

* banning all forms of tobacco advertising, sponsorship and promotion;

* raising tobacco prices through above-inflation increases in tobacco duty;

* a comprehensive National Health Service response to nicotine addiction and support for cessation;

* major public communications programmes aimed at encouraging smokers to quit or cut down, and non-smokers not to start;

* increasing provision of smoke-free places;

* consumer protection measures such as improved warnings, plain packaging, proper enforcement of appropriate restrictions on retailers, and regulation of tobacco as a dangerous drug with controls over the contents of cigarettes and smoke."

Those items I consider justified and fair are italicised. The others should surely be resisted as infringements of social and individual freedom. Could there not be provision of places in offices of a certain size where staff can smoke - without having to go out into the street where smokers, alone or in little groups, are often to be seen during working hours taking a quick break to indulge their terrible habit? This is a sight that always arouses in me a strong sympathy for the smokers.

ASH has its counterpart in FOREST - Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco. FOREST's claim that it is completely independent of the tobacco industry and does not promote smoking in any way has to be believed. Its stated objectives are:

* to promote equal rights for smokers, and greater tolerance between smokers and non-smokers;

* to defend the freedom of choice for adults who wish to smoke tobacco, and the rights of those who wish to make provision for smokers on their premises;

* to oppose discrimination against smokers wherever it may occur;

* to increase public awareness of the scientific complexities of the smoking debate, and to enable people to put the issue into proper perspective.

The word "enjoy" in FOREST's title is well chosen; moderate, "decent" smokers should not be made to feel guilty.

hurst@atlas.co.uk

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Invisible world of adolescents
Next     : A halting, hesitant friend