The Smoke Police, Ethics or Foolishness?

An interesting conversation developed last week at the big round corner
table at Mon Ami restaurant in Prague, where eight or ten friends gather for
dinner and conversation on Wednesday nights. Robin regularly plays piano that
night and we knock back a few beers or glasses of Moravian red. It’s special to
have a regular gathering in a foreign city, where the owners smile to see us
and the table is always quietly reserved for our disparate group. Early on, my
friend Charlie noticed several of us had switched to electronic cigarettes and I
voiced my frustration over the increasing criminality of smoking in public
I’m a little to the left of really supporting the ever-increasing efforts
of the smoke-police, while Charlie’s relieved not to have his clothes and hair
stink when he gets home at night.
Admittedly he has more hair than I, but I’m
married to a non-smoker and know the complaint. We agree smoking’s an addiction,
no argument on that, but I feel frustrated when government, in this case a European
Union ruling from Brussels, singles me out. For Charlie it’s a matter of
ethics, a small social contribution we make to one another and he makes the
case that for him, ethics begins at the bottom and builds upward. I suck
thoughtfully and addictively on my non-intrusive electronic pipe and agree and
yet…and yet…
Something doesn’t fit for me in that argument and I struggle for
definition. Words are important to writers and the ground under us shifts
according to their use. Is smoking or not in public spaces really an ethical
issue or is that too strong a word? If I concede the term, Charlie, how does its
meaning radiate outward from there?
In the same way that an understanding of right and wrong begins at Mom’s
knee and is nurtured from there by family and friends—essentially the
experiences of life—respect for that
ethical concept, I maintain, is a top-down thing. Mom and Dad are the first
taste of hierarchal structure for children, in this case our immediate family.
And our regard for who they are and what they believe either flourishes or
withers by the degree of respect we receive from schoolmates, close friends,
bosses in our early working life and the social and political structure that we
accept as a personal hierarchy. It’s not an accident of language that those we
admire or respect, we look up to. Up
is higher. Who we look up to may say more about us than it does about them.
If Mom’s scaffold is sturdy, we’re pretty much okay. If the world
beyond her knee includes an abusive father and chaotic street life based on
poverty and drugs, ethics is a steeper climb. That’s a negative hierarchy and
certainly not impossible to overcome, but a hell of a lot steeper climb and
that’s where Charlie and I draw different conclusions. He’s had a life that
would knock most boys and certainly most men down, but at every critical stage someone was there for him and he
climbed. My life was smoother and I climbed as well, but not nearly so steeply
or high. The respect we have for each other allows us to disagree without
acrimony, because we’ve both been around for more decades that we’d care to
admit and, in our own way, we’re both right. A natural born optimist, I find it
more and more difficult today to maintain what Charlie and I might agree to
define as ethical optimism.
My American society is being asked to contribute more and more from the
bottom up, even as its unique hierarchal structure gives us fewer and fewer
icons to look up to. Congress boasts a 9% approval rating. Banks are now too
large to fail and people too small to succeed. Corporations (granted personhood
by the Supreme Court) are suddenly too
large to prosecute
and our prisons are chock-full of minor criminals. The legislators
we elected to represent us are deadlocked and we who elected them twist in the
wind, as the America I love hardens at the top and weakens at the bottom. Needy
and confused, the nation turns toward sports figures and celebrities, Youtube
and Facebook, Fox News and John Stewart. Lacking leadership and common goals,
we are entertained. Bread and circuses. It all makes a ban on smoking in public
look foolish and off the mark, like patching a tiny hole in a hurricane.
Those we once looked up to, unable to house the homeless, get a handle
on either our debt or our violent gun culture, but they can damn well keep us
from smoking in public places and call that an ethical decision. Here in Prague, it seems we are headed for a
total ban on indoor smoking and the side of me that loves Charlie and my other
non-smoking friends supports that. I prepare for it as best I can, by going
electronic instead of quitting, because that’s the apparent direction of the
world and I accept that. Inventiveness being what it is, our consumer society
has given me a brilliantly conceived alternative choice—how cool is that?
But ethical? I’m not so sure. Perhaps Charlie and I might agree that
it’s micro-ethical at best, while the macro-ethics of the nations on our planet
are in various stages of chaos.

2 thoughts on “The Smoke Police, Ethics or Foolishness?

  1. Thanx Jim for a well written account of the discussion of the evening. I would welcome your comments on spitting in the street. Although many (most) people consider this an appalling habit people continue to do it. Laws exist in many countries prohibiting spitting in public, but it seems the public is not so fast in coming forward to police such laws, but as I remember not so long ago people were not very fast in coming forward to the aid of the non-smokers, but now… Maybe the same will happen with the spitter, I can only hope. I was able to stop students form spitting in front of their school by identifying a spitter in class and asked his girlfriend if she enjoyed kissing the mouth of someone who had just previously spat on the footpath to her right. Ladies out there, "say no to a spitter" Catch you next week Jim. Charlie

  2. A superb and well thought out article. This is why I like your stuff…from however far away. One thing I think about this debate however is the magnification of the personal. So this impacts on yourself, but our assessment of a
    -general- right or wrong develops not soley from our family or upbringing. But from our later informed assessment of how much it will impact others and wider society (and us included. With traditional cigarettes there really is no answer to the fact that in certain enclosed situations you may damage other's health. We do not know readily which people will be harmed. But that does not mean democratic government should not enact laws that affect those who may do damage to others. Freedom is important, and informed impartial democracy to govern free societies – the more so.

    The biggest lie however, in the last quarter of the 20th centuary and first 12 years of the new one, is that Freedom in itself is justification enough justification to harm as yet unknown others. A thought also for the gun control debate…?

    Great stuff – Tom Draper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *