Those of us who smoke: Don't treat us as subnormal human beings
I REFER to Tuesday's letters by Mr Karl See and Mr Raymund Koh, 'No smoking in lifts, but enclosed lift lobbies' and 'Ashtrays in bus shelters defeat message'.
These are examples of an anti-smoking lobby that has become totally unreasonable and insensitive, and which ignores the rights of other human beings.
What happened to the call to build a more gracious, tolerant and forgiving society?
Smoking is now banned even in nature reserves. The authorities explained that carelessly thrown cigarette butts can start bushfires during the hot season.
Translation: We cannot even smoke outdoors.
This can only be considered a Nazi-style approach.
How about banning children from aircraft because they drive most passengers nuts? Reminiscent of the eugenics movement or Pol Pot's Year Zero Initiative?
George Santayana said: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
Smoking is already banned in many places. From next month, the ban will be extended to children's playgrounds, exercise areas, markets, underground and multistorey carparks, ferry terminals and jetties. It will also be extended to non-air conditioned areas in offices, factories, shops, shopping complexes and lift lobbies.
Smoking bans are misguided efforts by retrograde Puritans.
The problem with bans and restrictions is that they are an easy way to deal with life's moral issues which could eventually weaken - and not strengthen - the moral fibre of society.
We need to step back to look where we are heading, for there is a lot more at stake than a breath of fresh air.
The epidemic of calls to castigate smokers even more has spread and is symptomatic of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout society.
This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of a relentless anti-smoking lobby.
The issue is not whether smoking or second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace. The issue is: If it is harmful, what is the proper and reasonable reaction? Should anti-smokers satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions - or should they influence the Government to force people to make the 'right' decision?
The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his values and assessment of the risks.
This is the same kind of decision that free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go for further studies or get a job, whether to get married or divorced and so on.
All these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; some are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him - not to his neighbours - and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority tries to commandeer the power of government and use it to dictate smokers' behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco smoke while eating at your favourite hawker stall. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke - while they unleash a systematic and unlimited intrusion of privacy into our lives.
I smoke cigars and pipes and am merely defending the right of an adult to use a legal product. Since when can we exercise the rights of the many at the expense of the rights of the few?
I will be the first to defend the right of non-smokers, but each right also carries a duty - the duty to look out for those whose minority rights are infringed when a majority exercises its rights.
Remember, cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco are not banned in Singapore - they are not cocaine, heroin or Ecstasy. There is no need to treat those of us who smoke like subnormal human beings, criminals or social outcasts.
Dr Michael Loh
I REFER to Tuesday's letters by Mr Karl See and Mr Raymund Koh, 'No smoking in lifts, but enclosed lift lobbies' and 'Ashtrays in bus shelters defeat message'.
These are examples of an anti-smoking lobby that has become totally unreasonable and insensitive, and which ignores the rights of other human beings.
What happened to the call to build a more gracious, tolerant and forgiving society?
Smoking is now banned even in nature reserves. The authorities explained that carelessly thrown cigarette butts can start bushfires during the hot season.
Translation: We cannot even smoke outdoors.
This can only be considered a Nazi-style approach.
How about banning children from aircraft because they drive most passengers nuts? Reminiscent of the eugenics movement or Pol Pot's Year Zero Initiative?
George Santayana said: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
Smoking is already banned in many places. From next month, the ban will be extended to children's playgrounds, exercise areas, markets, underground and multistorey carparks, ferry terminals and jetties. It will also be extended to non-air conditioned areas in offices, factories, shops, shopping complexes and lift lobbies.
Smoking bans are misguided efforts by retrograde Puritans.
The problem with bans and restrictions is that they are an easy way to deal with life's moral issues which could eventually weaken - and not strengthen - the moral fibre of society.
We need to step back to look where we are heading, for there is a lot more at stake than a breath of fresh air.
The epidemic of calls to castigate smokers even more has spread and is symptomatic of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout society.
This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of a relentless anti-smoking lobby.
The issue is not whether smoking or second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace. The issue is: If it is harmful, what is the proper and reasonable reaction? Should anti-smokers satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions - or should they influence the Government to force people to make the 'right' decision?
The decision to smoke, or to avoid second-hand smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his values and assessment of the risks.
This is the same kind of decision that free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go for further studies or get a job, whether to get married or divorced and so on.
All these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; some are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him - not to his neighbours - and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority tries to commandeer the power of government and use it to dictate smokers' behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco smoke while eating at your favourite hawker stall. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke - while they unleash a systematic and unlimited intrusion of privacy into our lives.
I smoke cigars and pipes and am merely defending the right of an adult to use a legal product. Since when can we exercise the rights of the many at the expense of the rights of the few?
I will be the first to defend the right of non-smokers, but each right also carries a duty - the duty to look out for those whose minority rights are infringed when a majority exercises its rights.
Remember, cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco are not banned in Singapore - they are not cocaine, heroin or Ecstasy. There is no need to treat those of us who smoke like subnormal human beings, criminals or social outcasts.
Dr Michael Loh
