Most people have been surprised at the speed with which the smoking ban has been comprehensively adopted.
And, as most of us don't smoke, we are pleased that the oppression of smokers has so rapidly purified the air of pubs having previously conquered offices and cafes.
The victimised smokers themselves are resigned to losing their liberty to consume the weed.
It was not always so.
Four hundred years ago, many Turks and Russians braved the death penalty to indulge their cravings. In 1891, Iran's Ayatollah put a fatwa on tobacco. In 1942 Adolf Hitler instituted a campaign against what he called the "Red Man's revenge" on Europeans, for introducing alcohol to native Americans.
Such draconian measures are not yet seen in the modern world. But hefty fines, coupled with social pressures, have cowed addicts into submission and acceptance of the prohibition.
In most developed countries, no matter what trials and tribulations smokers must endure, a residual 15 to 20 per cent of people persist with the habit.
Nobody knows how such people with addictive personalities coped prior to the introduction of tobacco by Sir Walter Raleigh.
In today's world, smoking bans open up business opportunities as people seek loopholes. Testimony to this is the gas fires that have sprung up outside pubs and in roof gardens throughout all western countries that have recently outlawed smoking inside. Bans have also stimulated business opportunities for cures for the addiction.
Other alternatives have appeared or been resurrected. Chewing tobacco, banned in Australia, has a hard row to hoe, given the general revulsion to spitting.
However, Philip Morris has introduced an electronic smokeless device. And a Chinese company has an electronic cigarette that sells for $250.
Snuff is also making a reappearance in some places, though it too, is banned in Australia.
Having largely been displaced by smoking tobacco throughout most of the world, snuff had retained a significant market share in Sweden, where one-fifth of men are daily users and it is now far more prevalent than smoking tobacco.
Snuff, having been observed for decades, does not seem to have the same damaging health effects as smoking. By definition, its use does not have the detrimental "second-hand smoke" effects the anti-smoking lobby claimed of cigarettes.
Perhaps the newer electronic products will also share these advantages. However, we may not get a chance to see.
The anti-smoking lobby, flush with a constant stream of victories over the hapless smoker, is not about to relent.
As far as tobacco products are concerned, even if the pleasures and drawbacks are totally self-contained among the users, the product will be opposed.
This is just another example of the detrimental impact made by those addicted to anti-tobacco regulatory measures. They will not allow their fellow citizens to pursue their own versions of pleasure.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment