|
|
|
July 5th, 2007
 | 09:10 am - On the Smoking Ban
Classical liberal principles provide a sound justification for the smoking ban
There has been considerable public debate over the past few weeks about the introduction of the public smoking ban in England. From July 1 it has been against the law to smoke in virtually all 'enclosed' and 'substantially enclosed' public places and workplaces. No more puffing after a pint. However, as is so often the case with issues of practical ethics, the different parties often seem to be arguing past each other. Clarity is called for. There are two issues, which are routinely muddled in public debate on this matter.
- The factual issue, whether there is a significant danger to non-smokers from passive smoking.
- The ethical issue, whether such a significant danger justifies a ban.
On the factual issue, there is considerable evidence that secondhand smoke has a significant deleterious effect on health. There have been numerous studies of the health impacts of passive smoking over the past 25 years, providing significant evidence of passive smoking risks. Such work includes research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health and the American Cancer Society. Of particular interest is a study published in the British Medical Journal in 1997, which analysed 37 passive smoking studies and found a 24 per cent increase in lung cancer among people living with smokers.The ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) study enrolled patients in the 1980s. The results unquestionably show an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease. The overwhelming view of the medical establishment is that there is a significant risk posed to those exposed to second hand smoke.
Those who continue to deny that there is a significant risk from passive smoking often point to a single study which appeared in the British Medical Journal, based on research by James Enstrom, from the University of California, and Geoffrey Kabat, from the State University of New York. They analysed data from the American Cancer Society's (ACS) Cancer Prevention Study, which was started in 1959 and ended in 1998, focusing their attention on nonsmoking partners of smokers. The researchers reasoned, plausibly, that being married to smokers meant this group was exposed to second hand smoke. Their analysis indicated that passive smoking wasn't significantly associated with an increased risk of death from heart disease or cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. From this finding, the study's authors, suggest that passive smoking cannot cause the 30 per cent increased risk of coronary heart disease that it is currently believed to cause. Instead, they argue that it might cause a much smaller effect. Nevertheless, they couldn't rule out the possibility of a 20 per cent increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
However, very serious flaws have been identified in the study. Among the most significant are:
- participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone came into contact with it, whether married to a smoker or not.
- no information was collected on the sources of secondhand smoke other than spousal smoking.
From the medical information available, there is an overwhelming probability that exposure to secondhand smoke causes significant health dangers. This is the view that prevails in the vast majority of the medical community. Alternative views are available at the Forest website, although I have to say that apart from the Enstrom/Kabat study, there is very little there which appears to have any weight.
If there is a real risk to health from passive smoking, does this justify the kind of ban recently introduced in England? The main thrust of the argument put forward by opponents of the ban is that the issue is one of personal liberty. Smokers have a right to choose to smoke, it is said, and the Government should not be imposing a ban which infringes on their liberty.
Personal liberty is undoubtedly of great importance but I defy anyone to conclude, following calm reflection, that it is an absolute right. It is surely something to be guarded carefully and preserved wherever possible, but it is not something to be preserved regardless. Perhaps the greatest of classical liberal thinkers, John Stuart Mill, defended a harm principle: that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. This principle, formulated in the 19th century, has stood the test of time and still guides much liberal thought. This, I think generally reasonable, principle provides a justification for the current smoking ban so long as the factual case, that second hand smoke endangers the health of non-smokers, has been established at least on the balance of probability.
Taking these liberal considerations into account, one could argue that non-smokers may make their own free choice not to frequent establishments where people are smoking. However, the obvious consequence of this is that every pub, bar, nightclub, in fact practically every enclosed public space at all, is somewhere a non-smoker has the dubious liberty to choose not to go to. That said, there may well be a case for smokers or businesses to have the legal right to establish licensed smoking premises, which non-smokers may choose to accompany smoker friends to if they wish. There may, however, be unwanted practical implications of such a dual system.
To summarise, the considerations outlined above lead me to accept the following:
- It is reasonable to conclude that second hand smoke presents a real danger to the health of non-smokers.
- Classical liberal principles provide a justification for a ban on an activity which harms those who do not choose to participate in that activity.
- From 1 and 2, the current smoking ban is justified.
- There may be a case for licensed premises where smoking is permitted but which are specifically designated as such.
|
July 3rd, 2007
| 04:42 pm - Being a Muslim Today
I went round to one of my least favourite places today, the bank. The quite beautiful young lady who served me was a Muslim, as indicated by her wearing the hijab or head scarf. Not far from the counters there was a television, presumably to provide some diversion for waiting customers, showing ongoing BBC News 24 reports of arrests of various Muslim men in connection with the recent terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow.
It started me reflecting on what it must be like to be a Muslim in Britain today. It is often stated in public debate that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, tolerant, law-abiding citizens, and this is certainly true. However, with intolerance of Muslims on the increase in the current climate I have started to see this statement met with a disbelieving sneer. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a member of that peaceful Muslim majority going about your daily business knowing that there are people looking at you with the same thoughts going through their heads: Muslim, terrorists, bomb, wondering whether you are an extremist, or your brother, or cousin.
In a time of heightened security, the corruption of legitimate concerns into insidious suspicions is yet another danger of which we must be wary.
Current Music: Claro Intelecto - Your Trophy
|
July 2nd, 2007
| 03:06 pm - Is Britain Getting Poorer?
According to economists, the United Kingdom has the fifth largest economy in the world. Nevertheless, it appears that the country cannot afford to empty the bins every week, provide important post office services or fund proper annual salary increases for huge numbers of vital public sector workers.
Is our country secretly getting poorer? I think we should be told. Or perhaps it is simply that we spend billions of pounds on other far more important stuff. Like invading other countries.
|
June 30th, 2007
| 10:34 pm - Sonic Youth, the Pixies, Nirvana and Pavement
The careers of Sonic Youth, the Pixies, Nirvana and Pavement span the most interesting and influential years of American alternative rock, from the late 1980s through to the end of the 1990s.
Each band is acclaimed critically, while Nirvana's mainstream success and record sales are off the chart compared to Sonic Youth, the Pixies and Pavement.
However, charting the relative success of the four groups in America and the United Kingdom reveals some intriguing facts.
The Pixies, regarded generally as one of the most influential of all rock bands, never sold a lot of records in their home country. However, they were much more successful in Europe, and in the UK particularly. Doolittle, the Pixies' second album, released in 1989, broke the top 10 in Britain, reaching number eight, while barely breaking into the top 100 in the US, only reaching number 98. Bossanova achieved the number three spot in the UK, number 70 in the US, while the Pixies' final album, Trompe le Monde, reached number 7 in the UK but only number 92 in the States.
Every Sonic Youth record has achieved considerably more success in the United Kingdom than in the USA. Goo, released in 1990, reached number 32 in Britain but only 96 in the USA. The most spectacular example is the 1992 release Dirty, which ascended to number 6 in the UK while only reaching 83 in America. Only Washing Machine, released in 1995, performed similarly in the two countries, reaching 58 in the US and 39 in the UK.
Pavement's debut, Slanted and Enchanted, failed to chart in the US but across the pond achieved some moderate success by breaking into the charts and reaching number 72. With their second album, Pavement, in many ways the epitome of indie rock, really took off in the UK. Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain failed to break the US top 100 but reached number 15 in the UK, a staggering performance for a group on a small label with little if any promotion. We see similar relative performances with Wowee Zowee, Brighten the Corners and Pavement's final record, Terror Twilight. All three charted impressively in the UK.
The relative performance of Nirvana in the United States and the United Kingdom is a little more difficult to interpret due to their sudden and explosive commercial success and their significant cultural resonance. However, there are some revealing facts.
Nirvana hit the mainstream music scene like a lightning bolt from a clear blue sky with Nevermind in 1991. However, while the album sold in huge numbers all around the world (in excess of 26 million so far) it actually failed to reach the number one spot in the UK, peaking at a rather anomalous number seven. In the US the album steamrollered the charts, achieving the top spot. Nevermind reached number two or three across most of Europe.
On the back of this success, and with Kurt Cobain achieving icon status (even before his death) the follow-up In Utero also shifted millions of units across the world. In between Nevermind and In Utero, Nirvana's forgotten first album, Bleach, rode the Nevermind wave and sold fairly well in 1992, three years after its initial release.
Now interestingly, whereas the admittedly extremely successful, and significantly more commercial, Nevermind only reached number seven in Britain, the much more abrasive and challenging In Utero went to number one. Bleach achieved measurable success in Europe and reached number 33 in the UK, whereas in the US, even with Nirvana the 900 pound gorilla in the musical jungle, Bleach barely made the top 100.
Note that the performance of Bleach in 1992 mirrors that of records by Sonic Youth, the Pixies and Pavement, before and after the Nirvana phenomenon. There is also a similar element with In Utero, although, as I said, Nirvana's incredible penetration of popular culture via the success of Nevermind makes this difficult to interpret with any accuracy.
What conclusions can we draw from all this? For me, this supports my previously-held intuition that listeners in the United Kingdom were probably more attuned to the 1990s US alternative rock phenomenon than listeners in the US, where it was actually happening. It also suggests that listeners in the UK were more attuned to the more alternative sound and the artists and releases which would, at least to the present day, gain and retain canonical long-term respect and come to be regarded as among the most influential rock music of the era.
Americans created the greatest, most original and influential rock music of the time. And the Brits knew it.
|
June 29th, 2007
| 08:06 am - Bomb
For the first time ever, I am actually living in London during a real terrorist bomb alert. Every time there has been an alert or an explosion in the past I have monitored the media coverage with concern but it has never had the strong personal significance it has today.
London 'bomb' made safe
My wife works in central London within about five minutes walk of Picadilly Circus. She just left the flat in order to go off to work. As I write this, it is far too early to know the extent of the threat which has been averted this morning. Hopefully it was a minor one, the work of some fantasist or amateur playing at being a terrorist. I await further updates with some anxiety.
|
June 28th, 2007
| 04:09 pm - Livejournal
I love livejournal. No, I really do. Really. It is just I am too damn lazy to post on it. In fact, laziness is my greatest failing and offsets most of my talents and abilities. Come to think of it, next to my general objections to big business and the certainty that a normal occupation would destroy me, my laziness is probably the biggest reason I am not working for some monolithic corporation earning obscene amounts of money doing something which makes no contribution to society but which makes obscene amounts of money for someone else.
Anyway, I am really going to have a crack this time. I want to be a writer and writers have to write. This is one of the places I am going to write.
Current Music: Pixies
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
frolix22's journal