Smoking ban is an attack on civil rights

I SEE that the unions, and SIPTU in particular, have decided to hitch their bandwagon to the No Smoking in the Workplace campaign. Sadly, it seems you can have any human right you want provided the politicians agree with it.

Whatever happened to tolerance? Isn’t that a human right as well? Apparently not. If we are to accept that our Health Minister is correct, smokers will no longer be tolerated. “Good thing,” I hear the so-called liberals say: “String them up, make examples of them. Show them their behaviour will not be tolerated. Ban their smoking from the workplace, and public spaces. They should be eliminated from society.”

Never mind that they have right on their side. Or do they? Let’s take a look at a few facts.

Smoking causes lung cancer. Well, no. It is a significant factor in lung cancer (which we predominantly don’t bother to treat). The original report (issued in 1955 and still the main reference point) showed that lung cancer was attributable to smoking in 70% of cases and the remainder were caused by environmental factors.

Passive smoking causes the death of... (well, pick your own figure here).

There have been three reports on the subject. One, from the World Health Organisation (WHO), follows a political agenda, yet not one of these reports actually found an increased risk to diseases previously associated with smoking. Certainly not enough to warrant specific legislation.

What they found was that being exposed to secondary smoke caused an increase risk that was so small it could be eliminated by statistical error. Eating an overcooked hamburger gives you a far higher risk, and taking an aspirin eliminates any purported risk three times over. Ah yes, we have the submissions to the Tobacco Control Authority, no doubt a spin-off from the American Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

So now we have it: a health minister who cannot give us basic health services, seeks to eliminate €2 billion a year in tobacco duty by basically eliminating any opportunity to smoke.

I have no doubt this letter will not make any impact on the outcome of the Health Minister’s decisions, but please do ask yourself, what restriction will you not accept?

Banning something on the grounds of public health is easy. Who can honestly argue with that? But just what is your own stopping point? Would you allow every activity to be banned?

Richard Atherton,

13, Island View,

Malahide,

Co Dublin.