Angst of a Smoker
Just read on the news that smoking in Singapore will be banned in more places. From now on, bus interchanges, community centres, hawker centres etc will have fresh air. Bravo! Well done Singapore. Not only will the air be cleaner and the incidence of inhaling second hand smoke be lower, mass numbers of street cleaners will be out of jobs because hey! There just aren't any more butts to pick up. From now on, the only way to pick up public butts would be at our designated red light districts.
Now how about the idea that smoking ought to be banned at pubs and clubs? Huh? Hello? I mean, I can actually intellectually understand the necessity of banning smoking at public places such as hawker centres and the like, because they are truly public places in every sense of the word. No bouncers to tell you what to do or where to go, no DJs to exhort you to raise your hands up into the air and shake your booty, and no gorgeous SYTs imploring you to get half-a-dozen tequila shots just because there is an inhouse promotion going on (sah, if you buy 12 shots hor, you can save 50 cents a shot lehhhh). But in pubs? Clubs? I mean, if you are scared of inhaling second-hand smoke in pubs and clubs, why not just not go? One can live without food, thus one needs to go to a hawker centre for sustenance. Last I heard, one does not die from lack of alcohol or lack of dancing.
When do we cross the line between social good and inhibition of personal liberty? I believe myself to be reasonably well-educated, and I do try to keep myself updated on all current affairs, health issues included. It is thus, for me, despite the well-documented health risks, a conscious and deliberate lifestyle choice to continue smoking.
We can take this argument a little further. In recent times, the government has been increasing taxes on cigarettes. What once used to be only $2.90 when I first started puffing, is now an average of $10 a pack of twenty. Of course I can bitch about how expensive it is, but intellectually I do understand that the choice is actually implicit in me. If I can't take the price hikes, then don't smoke! The final choice is mine.
The blanket ban on pubs and clubs on the other hand is a totally different thing. In fact, philosophically, it is a 180-degree thing from what I just highlighted. The choice no longer lies with me. In the absence of a compelling factor, this is something I cannot comprehend. Why can't smokers light up in pubs and clubs when it is the non-smoker's choice to frequent such places? They do not provide an essential service (alcoholics may choose to disagree *hiakz hiakz*), unlike hospitals, banks etc; they are not directly accessible to the public (unlike bus interchanges and queues); they do not cater to the masses (unlike transportation systems and food centres); and they do not have high human traffic (unlike shopping centres and theatres etc where the turnover of human traffic is high). Ergo, where is the inherent rationale for banning smoking in pubs?
I guess I'm just a little disillusioned. As far as I can see, there is an inability to separate two issues here: health risks to the general public as a result of smoking (whether first-hand or second), and personal liberty. In different contexts, each issue must be accorded its individual relevance. To me, to smoke in a hospital or cinema definitely contravenes the first more than the second. To smoke in a pub? Definitely contravenes the second more than the first.
May those with cooler heads and more rational minds prevail.
Now how about the idea that smoking ought to be banned at pubs and clubs? Huh? Hello? I mean, I can actually intellectually understand the necessity of banning smoking at public places such as hawker centres and the like, because they are truly public places in every sense of the word. No bouncers to tell you what to do or where to go, no DJs to exhort you to raise your hands up into the air and shake your booty, and no gorgeous SYTs imploring you to get half-a-dozen tequila shots just because there is an inhouse promotion going on (sah, if you buy 12 shots hor, you can save 50 cents a shot lehhhh). But in pubs? Clubs? I mean, if you are scared of inhaling second-hand smoke in pubs and clubs, why not just not go? One can live without food, thus one needs to go to a hawker centre for sustenance. Last I heard, one does not die from lack of alcohol or lack of dancing.
When do we cross the line between social good and inhibition of personal liberty? I believe myself to be reasonably well-educated, and I do try to keep myself updated on all current affairs, health issues included. It is thus, for me, despite the well-documented health risks, a conscious and deliberate lifestyle choice to continue smoking.
We can take this argument a little further. In recent times, the government has been increasing taxes on cigarettes. What once used to be only $2.90 when I first started puffing, is now an average of $10 a pack of twenty. Of course I can bitch about how expensive it is, but intellectually I do understand that the choice is actually implicit in me. If I can't take the price hikes, then don't smoke! The final choice is mine.
The blanket ban on pubs and clubs on the other hand is a totally different thing. In fact, philosophically, it is a 180-degree thing from what I just highlighted. The choice no longer lies with me. In the absence of a compelling factor, this is something I cannot comprehend. Why can't smokers light up in pubs and clubs when it is the non-smoker's choice to frequent such places? They do not provide an essential service (alcoholics may choose to disagree *hiakz hiakz*), unlike hospitals, banks etc; they are not directly accessible to the public (unlike bus interchanges and queues); they do not cater to the masses (unlike transportation systems and food centres); and they do not have high human traffic (unlike shopping centres and theatres etc where the turnover of human traffic is high). Ergo, where is the inherent rationale for banning smoking in pubs?
I guess I'm just a little disillusioned. As far as I can see, there is an inability to separate two issues here: health risks to the general public as a result of smoking (whether first-hand or second), and personal liberty. In different contexts, each issue must be accorded its individual relevance. To me, to smoke in a hospital or cinema definitely contravenes the first more than the second. To smoke in a pub? Definitely contravenes the second more than the first.
May those with cooler heads and more rational minds prevail.
posted by ekkie at 4:19 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home