Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
A Separate Reality
The current draconian Spanish smoking ban came into force on 2 Jan 2011. Translated from El Correo.

Doctors and restaurateurs have declared war. Navarra Basque Society for the Prevention of Smoking entered yesterday into the controversy of the 'smoking ban' to attack the restaurants with two accusations that could hurt them a lot. Health professionals claimed that owners of bars and cafes of "being sponsored by the tobacco industry" and said they do not believe they have been losing money since it was forbidden to smoke on their premises. The sector's response was immediate. "We challenge Navarra Basque society to say openly that our association has received some support from the tobacco industry, and it will be in court immediately," the federation said.

The stakes are high. A document sent to the mail by the president of the Basque Navarre Society for the Prevention of Smoking, Carlos Cortijo, said that the statistics of membership of the Social Security Ministry of Labour "shows that the number of people employed by the industry increased "from January 2010 to January 2011."

So let's get this right. A bunch of antismoking doctors have claimed that Spanish restaurants and bars are being paid by tobacco companies to protest about the smoking ban. In addition, they say that restaurants and bars haven't actually been losing money as a result of the ban. Their evidence? The fact that they took on more staff last year.

This is crazy. It's completely unhinged. It's more or less routine for antismokers to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is in the pay of Big Tobacco. And indeed sometimes they are. But the entire hospitality industry? That's crazy. But even crazier is the notion that the trade must be doing fine this year, simply because it was last year. It's as if these antismokers occupy a separate reality.

And that's perhaps exactly how it is.

For the reality of things according to the antismokers is that smoking bans don't harm business, but actually improve it. And that smokers almost universally approve of smoking bans, and carry on going to restaurants and bars just like they always did, only more so. And that there are dramatic improvements in public health. And that smoking bans are always a great success, and there have been countless examples of this success. This, as far as the antismokers are concerned, is the simple reality of the matter. Anyone who disagrees is either uneducated or in the pay of tobacco companies.

And so, when the antismokers read reports of bars and restaurants losing business, they know that it simply isn't true, and that it has to be those damn tobacco companies up to their usual mischief.

It would seem that these new realities (and the antismoking reality is not the only one) are conceived and nurtured in small closed communities (a bit like Heaven's Gate), very often in San Francisco, in which all concerned become true believers before they set out to bring their new reality to the wider world. There it circulates first in the highest strata of society, among politicians and journalists and senior executives and professionals of every sort. And then, once safely ensconced there, it is rolled out for general public consumption. And only a few hundred top executives and opinion formers may be needed to do that. A prince or two helps, of course.

It seems entirely plausible that there was a one-day seminar held somewhere in London in, say, 2004 for a number of top executives from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, and several newspapers, and also the CEOs of a number of pubcos, and several senior politicians from the Labour and Conservative and Lib Dem parties, and maybe a couple of celebrities as well. Senior doctors like Sir Liam Donaldson or Sir Charles George would have addressed this select gathering, outlining the known dangers of tobacco smoking, and the newly discovered menace of secondhand smoke, and the medical imperative of denormalising smoking. In a slick Powerpoint presentation, somebody from ASH would have assured all those present that smoking bans had proved to be a great success in America, particularly in California, and there had been no loss of trade in bars and restaurants, and a dramatic improvement in public health and worker productivity. Afterwards, over tea and smoked salmon and egg-and-cress sandwiches, many of these executives would have no doubt expressed their enthusiasm for the idea of smoking bans, given the many clear benefits, and the zero costs. Any doubters would have been referred to the relevant pages of the accompanying glossy brochure for them to be quickly assured that, for example, 70% of smokers wanted to give up smoking. Once everyone was on board, the smoking ban could be rolled out across the nation with the all the political parties and the whole of the mass media and most of the hospitality trade each playing their pre-assigned roles. All that had been needed to be done was to persuade a hundred or so key figures of the coming new reality, and they could be counted on to do their bit to help to create that reality.

Of course, more or less everything they were told was untrue, or was a half-truth. But these busy executives didn't have the time to give the matter serious consideration. They were as impressionable as anybody. All they needed to know was that Sir Liam Donaldson and Sir Charles George had 'Sir' in front of their name to trust them implicitly. Furthermore most of them hadn't been inside a pub or a cafe in years. And many of them no longer smoked.

And so when the ban was introduced, they all did their bit to help launch it, and it was accordingly immediately hailed as a great success, particularly among smokers. And almost immediately, as ever, the usual health benefits were claimed.

But if this is how the 'new reality' was created in Britain, why isn't it quite working in Spain? The answer may be that the British mass media, and the hospitality business, and political power, is concentrated in relatively few hands, and so relatively few people needed to agree among themselves to make it work. And in Britain we currently have pretty much a one-party state, with Labour and Lib Dems and Conservatives all but indistinguishable from each other. And most pubs belong to chains of one sort or other, and for the proprietors of these chains they are simply another business opportunity, not different from a baking or a mining business. And there are only a handful of media outlets. Relatively few people were needed to help create the new non-smoking reality.

But this couldn't be done in Spain where most bars and restaurants are small family businesses, and where the mass media isn't quite so centralised, and where politics is rather more fractured. In Spain, and even less so in Greece, it wan't possible to create and sustain this new reality. In fact, it can probably only be done in fairly advanced Western societies, with well-established media outlets (like the BBC), well-established political parties, and well-established hospitality chains (e.g. Starbucks). For they all have to work together to create and sustain the new reality.

And of course the new reality, when it is rolled out in public, comes up against the old reality, which is one of traditional smoky pubs and bars. It becomes a struggle of one reality against another reality. It becomes a struggle of the political class, the media, and the hotel and restaurant and pub chains, against the ordinary pubgoer, whose reality - all too often of broken communities, fractured friendships, isolation, exclusion, and loneliness - can never be allowed to mar the perfection of the new reality (by being reported, for example).

The new reality is an illusion, of course. But if the illusion can be sustained for long enough, it may become reality. If people can be got to stop smoking for long enough, the ancient vice might yet be expunged from society.

And what applies to the new antismoking reality that has been rolled out over the world also applies to several other new realities. The global warming reality. The European Union reality. And probably a whole bunch more realities. All of them conflict with pre-existing realities in one way or other. And the wars between these realities are all conducted the same way, by suppressing the old reality as far as possible, and supplanting it with the new reality. So the old smokers are never allowed any say. And nor are climate sceptics. Nor eurosceptics. They mustn't even be permitted to be seen. In this manner a new public consensus is created, without any apparent dissenters, with which even ordinary members of the public often feel unable to openly disagree.

Nevertheless, none of these new realities has yet been successfully installed in the public arena. While most of the European political class, with one or two notable exceptions (e.g. Vaclav Klaus), is on board for the EU, the general public in almost every European country is becoming increasingly disenchanted with it. And the global warming reality struck a rock in the form of Climategate last year, and hasn't recovered. And the antismoking reality has encountered strong resistance in Holland and Spain and Greece and most of the old Eastern bloc countries.

It's far from over.

  • 1
Hello, Frank --

Although I have not been commenting lately, I haven't missed a post!

A few quick observations:

1/ It doesn't seem as if the non-smokers care if smokers live or die, and if they did the latter, apparently, so much the better. If so, they should just let us smoke. Problem is, we'd probably live until we were 90! ;)

2/ Lots of concerns about Champix. One of them is if someone taking it has a serious car accident (because the drug has messed with their brain) and injures someone else. Champix is a potentially deadly drug (as is Zyban). Have you read the blog 'UBHDenton' about one woman's personal experiences with it in a Texas hospital? Frightening.

3/ On US smoking bans in places of entertainment. When we went there last year, the restaurant-bar that normally had patrons all night long (as well as queue to get in) now had empty tables. People eat or have a beer and go -- quickly.

4/ Also on the US -- there is one chain of hotels that still allows smoking in the rooms. As you would expect, they get a lot of repeat custom from smokers, most of whom are business travellers who stay there regularly. The place is really nice, immaculately clean and reasonably priced. Let's hope they can maintain their 'live and let live' stance.

Finally, I think it might have been on another of your posts where mandatory NHS check-ups could become a reality. This is straight out of the US HMO playbook. However, there is a difference between HMOs (or whatever they are called these days) being privately funded, and the NHS which is funded by tax. I thought we were so hard up for cash in the UK? So, how is there ample funding not only for ASH but extra cash for surgeries to perform these tests and recommend treatment for all and sundry? The costs will be enormous. Better health? I don't think so. It hasn't made a difference in the US, except that there are more irradiated Americans walking the world. ;) A case in point: mammograms have been a very big deal over there for decades -- selling fear and panic. I'm not saying breast cancer isn't serious, but could they be doing more harm than good?

Mention health to North Americans and they go squirrelly. For some reason, becoming unwell is their greatest fear. Has been so since the 1970s, fuelled largely by nurses in private conversation (I knew a lot of nurses there) banging on about 'the Big C', smoking and breast cancer.


Mention health to North Americans and they go squirrelly. For some reason, becoming unwell is their greatest fear.

Truer words were never spoken. Every conceivable form of media constantly bombards their brains with scary health stories sponsored in large part by Pig Pharma commercials. Mass hypochondria is in Pig Pharma's interest.

It drives you crazy. You want to spray paint the side of a big building with the uptrending life expectancy chart.

Another thing is the notion that they're somehow paying for the unwell. What on earth do they think the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco companies was all about? Recovering supposed medical costs by the states for treating smoking patients. The states won for christsakes! They got their money in spades. And more state and federal taxes were added on after the MSA. Is it ever enough?

Just watch NBC's Today show which is on 7 days a week. It is a non-stop Healthscare Lecture interspersed with Skinnerian reinforcement designer drug advertisements. It's pitiful.

I left one thing out there.

It is a non-stop Healthscare Lecture interspersed with Skinnerian reinforcement designer drug advertisements, interspersed with anti-smoking public service announcements.

Yes -- I had a very good friend who was quite left-wing and had a Ph.D. in Psychology. Even she warned me off of Skinner and RD Laing. She said they were both dangerous.

Thank you!!

Do you notice how many Americans with anti-smoking comments always write, 'Here I am working my ---- off for these deviant smokers'? They then say that smoking shouldn't be allowed in public housing. There was an article in a Vermont paper late last year about the subject (maybe Frank covered it), and the number of so-called decent middle-class taxpayers who wrote in about funding 'smokers living off the public!! It should be banned!!' was incredible. Insensitive. One desperate lady who wrote in said she had a psychological disorder and described how smoking was the only thing keeping her reasonably sane. The vitriol poured upon this poor woman was unbelievable. I give her a lot of credit for coming out and saying (I paraphrase), 'Hey, folks, I'm sorry, but a fag or two keeps me going and out of your hair'. People should be ashamed of what's going on. Remember the 'only-a-two-hour-smoking flight ban'? I remember it well. Now look where we are.

And that Master Settlement is another joke. Talk about scope creep, including SCHIP. I read today where they want to use the settlement to compensate victims of (or their families for) forced sterilisation programmes in one of the Southern states. That had nothing AT ALL to do with tobacco companies and everything to do with state legislation and federal eugenics experiments nearly a century ago. Great -- now eugenicists want to connect tobacco companies with eugenics? I don't think so. Something must be done. What, exactly, I don't know. But to connect the two is bang out of order.

As for Today, which I watched almost religiously since I was a kid (I clearly remember Barbara Walters, Hugh Downs, Peter Paul and Mary and John Glenn's orbit), it's Fox and Friends for me these days.

Gee ... how times have changed (for the worse).

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account