2 April 2010

Ash, I understand. "A campaigning public health charity that works to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco" makes a lot of sense.

I have more trouble understanding the point of FOREST - which "represents adults who choose to smoke tobacco and non-smoking adults who are tolerant of other people smoking". Which translates as constant and high-level whingeing against attempts to reduce the negative impact of smoking.

Now, I admit you have to feel a little sorry for long term smokers. They might have developed the habit during the war, when cigarettes were a popular means of keeping the troops happy and were given out like sweeties. Or shortly afterwards, when no one was really talking about the potential health impact. It was legal, it was safe and most of all it was fucking addictive, so that when it became clear that it was killing you it was too late for quite a few people who couldn't give it up*

So, sorry guys. It's a bit shit. But it seems to me that FOREST and pieces like this miss a few big things. One, you being "inconvenienced" as up against "12 year olds not smoking" (my quotes) ought to fall under the special category of "fuck off". Can anyone really stand up on a box in Hyde Park and say they're happy that a few extra pre-teens might start smoking and die of numerous hideous diseases if it means they don't have to walk an extra 100 yards on a rainy Thursday night to buy some fags? What kind of fat, lazy, fucked up self-absorbed child killer do you need to be to support this argument?

Secondly, there's quotes like this:

"There must be freedom of choice, something that is fast disappearing in this so-called free country."

Maggie Hambling
artist

There "must be freedom of choice"? Why? I don't have the freedom of choice to light up a spliff. I'm not allowed to take ecstasy, or LSD or speed my tits off on a Friday night. None of these things are statistically more likely to kill me than smoking. I don't have that freedom of choice. But does FOREST campaign for the legalisation of drugs? A quick search of their site for "drugs" reveals no results. As does a search for cannabis. So they don't even have any official position. Now, I can understand why they don't want to muddy the waters of their campaign by bringing in the freedom to use other substances, but if they want to take a moral civil liberties position - as they claim - they need to be consistent. Should we be able to do what we like or not? Come on Maggie Hambling, spit it out.

Finally, there is plenty of evidence that smoking bans and other restrictions persuade people to give up smoking (even in Portsmouth). FOREST are therefore taking a position that they would like to reverse a 5.5% fall in smokers' numbers. Thousands of people won't die because of legislation they oppose. How on earth can you take this position because you quite like inhaling noxious fumes?

Just because something remains legal, no one has a responsibility to make it easy for you to do it. It's legal to drive at 200mph - just don't do it on a public highway. It's legal to run around naked - as long as no one sees you do it. You can fire a gun - on a shooting range. There's all sorts of legal things which are a massive hassle to actually do, but there's no pressure group saying you should be able to soar up the M1 at the speed of sound while waving your cock out of the window. Well, if you discount the AA.

So I'm sorry smokers will have to walk a mile to get their cigarettes if the law is changed. Especially since they probably can't breathe properly anymore. But perhaps they should have thought of that before rather than campaigning to make sure they bring all their fellow smokers down with them when they die.

* including my Dad, who smoked for 50 years from his time in the RAF until a Doctor told him that if he didn't quit they'd have to cut his leg off.