Draconian measures for smokers
It’s not an easy life for a smoker – legislation is making it very difficult for smokers to indulge in their habit. With approximately 7.7 million adult smokers in South Africa, puffing away on some 27 billion cigarettes , the Supreme Court of Appeal has recently found that the health hazards of smoking outweigh the rights of smokers as a group.
The new anti-smoking laws will bring about a total ban on indoor smoking. Smoking in open places such as outdoor eateries, beer gardens, parks, stadiums etc will also become illegal. A smoker on the beach can only light up more than 50 metres from the closest person. It is believed that the decrease of exposure to sidestream smoke (believed to be toxic and harmful) will be beneficial to non-smokers.
Aggrieved smokers are up in arms, saying that this is an extreme and shameless intrusion and vicious assault into people’s rights, choices and lifestyles. They believe that they are being humiliatingly ostracized and segregated in social and business situations.
The anti-smoking lobbyists are going full tilt for prohibition, and are rejoicing in the tough new smoking laws. They believe that this is the next step in the right direction with regard to protecting South African citizens from the damaging and hazardous effects of tobacco. If the new changes come into effect, South Africa will become the first country in Africa to become smoke-free.
Proprietors are up for a fine of R100 000, if they are unable to get their patrons to smoke in designated areas. And if you, the smoker, are caught smoking in the wrong place, you will be R500 poorer. Could this lead to non-smokers staying at home? And could the spin-off effect be that many restaurants and pubs have to close their doors? In the UK, thousands of restaurants and pubs have closed since their smoking ban went into effect.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld the blanket ban on tobacco advertising. British American Tobacco South Africa believe that this ban is unconstitutional. Justice Mthiyane believes that the government has a responsibility to ban tobacco advertising in order to protect its citizens from the ravages of tobacco. The National Council Against Smoking welcomes the decision.
Interesting statistics:
- The numbers of cigarette smokers are down by 30% in comparision to 10 years ago;
- The Medical Research Council says that in 2000, 44 400 deaths in South Africa were tobacco-related.
We ask you, the following questions:
- Do you believe that the tax-paying smoker should be penalized in this way?
- Do you believe that it will be possible to enforce such a broad ban on smoking in open places?
- Would you “rat” on your neighbor?
- Do you think that this latest anti-smoking assault is a gross abuse of power and ill-considered?
- Are these new regulations unconstitutional?
- Are the smokers you know, currently considerate of their non-smoking friends and colleagues?
- Do you applaud these tough new smoking measures?
- What about alcohol – should that be banned as well?
We live in a country that espouses freedom of choice and association. Freedom to smoke for anyone should be balanced against violation of individual rights. Lighting up should not affect the non smoker who happens to be within the smokers vicinity,let alone the toxiicity of smoke in the lungs of the inhalant.
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER FOR SMOKERS TO CRY FOUL WHEN THE RIGHTS OF NON SMOKERS ARE ENFORCED.
As a sort of smoker / sort of non smoker, I must say its probably one of the dumbest habits. Imagine, a Martian looking down: “Weird, these humans actually kill themselves to feel good!?” Or when it was first discovered and used: ” Ja, you put this to your lips … thats it … and drag in a whole lot of smoke … yes, right into your lungs … nice, hey?!”
If I had my way I would ban cigirettes and booze. Both are health hazards.
I am 69 and have lost 90% of my old friends due to one or both of these habits while I am still as fit as a fiddle and not on any chronic medication. Also, by experience of my wifes sugar addiction excessive amounts is another health hazard.
It’s a tough question to answer simply because I don’t smoke… but I used to ‘way-back-when’ in my ‘coming-out’ years, so I am not totally one-sided on the issue. My thoughts are pro banning smoking in public eating places or areas where people are confined to limited space. Why should I inhale someone’s tobacco smoke or have my clothes stink of the stale smell when I don’t indulge. Granted, one’s clothes and hair can smell of the fry-ups after eating at certain restaurants, or you can have a cloud of boerie and tjops hovering over you after being at a braai – but the bottom line is these are acceptable if you have chosento be at that venue yourself!
My husband has to drive a company car from time to time and feels quite nauseous if the previous driver was a colleague who smokes. That’s inflicted stench!
I am all for curbing the use of cigarettes, especially in the young – once the habit bites, it’s not easy to drop. Many young folk think it’s ‘cool’ to smoke and they use the cigarettes as a social crutch, but the damage those little rolls of leaf cause is just too dangerous to condone.
So I suppose I believe people have the right to light up, but not where it will affect others around them.
It’s commonly known that BOOZE causes more deaths than having a ‘puff.’
However, because the revenue [ taxes,duty,adverts etc. ] received from booze is so much higher….having ‘ a skyff’ is suddenly such a sin.
What happened to CHOICE ?
Obviously smoking is a health hazard…but so is polution….and squatter camps…..plenty of talk about these but very little action.