by Viv Forbes (currently of the Carbon Sense Coalition), November 1991, from his private archives, written at the request of John Singleton

In 1620 the British Crown banned the growing of tobacco in England. Ever since, governments have had a love-hate relationship with what Christopher Columbus described as “a bewitching vegetable with unique health giving properties”. At the same time as they banned it in England, the Government granted a Crown Monopoly to the Virginia Company in return for a tobacco tax of one shilling per pound. By 1633, Virginia had become a single crop economy.

The hate-love affair of Governments with tobacco continues today. They hate to see smokers enjoying it but they love to get their hands on the taxes they pay.

There are three issues in the Smoking Debate — health, advertising and freedom.

The party-poopers in Parliament would have us believe that smoking is a dreadful danger, and we are too stupid to assess the risks for ourselves.

I suspect we are all going to die one day. Each man’s life is his own and he should be free to choose how it ends, even if we do not agree with that choice. Some may choose a life of moderation, abstinence, hard work and quiet devotion followed by a gentle expiry in bed after a day of weeding the roses. I’m not sure whether they will live a long life, but it will surely seem long. I respect their choice, but my preference is to be caught and shot by an irate husband at the age of 94. Fred Nile’s utopian exit is probably an ecstatic seizure in the midst of a fire-and-brimstone harangue of the ungodly. I respect Fred’s choice too and will not assault him with statistics to justify using the government health squad to forcibly restrain his hazardous fervour. Others may seek the thrill of power, the distraction of danger, the wallop of whiskey, the security of wealth, or the serenity of religion in their pursuit of happiness. Any one of these activities, if inflicted on rats for 24 hours a day, will probably shorten their life. Each of us must choose that combination of risk, stimulation, satisfaction, safety and cost which best suits our values and our personality.

Speaking of personality, there is a growing body of evidence which questions the whole statistical basis of the health hysteria surrounding smoking.

Professor Eysenck, one of the world’s leading psychologists and Professor Emeritus from the University of London, is a pioneer in the relationship between personality, stress, smoking and health. He insists on scientific rigour in his experiments and is critical of much of the so-called evidence presented by the anti-smoking fanatics. After many studies of personality, smoking and health, Eysenck found that personality and stress are six times more important in predicting who will get cancer or heart disease than smoking. Smoking is just one of 215 factors which tend to be found in people who develop cancer. He concludes “even if smoking is causally related to cancer, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause for it”. He also found that personality is closely correlated with smoking habits.

Stress is the real killer and some people turn to nicotine to relieve that stress. Who are we to deny them that choice? “But what about innocent bystanders?” they cry, “Surely Government should protect them from the deadly dangers of passive smoking?” Of course people should be free to choose their air quality. Mark Twain was one of the founding members of the Considerate Smoker’s League — he made it a rule that, in the presence of non-smokers, he would never smoke more than two cigars at once.

However, this is not sufficient for the zealots of the new SS (Smoking Squad). In order to protect us from passive smoking, they are now treating smokers like dogs — “they may dirty our offices, so we’ll put them outside.” Governments seem to employ a high proportion of dogs — at any time about 5% of government employees can now be seen outside on the footpath, smoking. Simple-minded taxpayers get irate at the apparent waste incurred, but this shows a lack of understanding. Think about it — the real danger to Australia does not come from happy bureaucrats on the footpath, smoking — it comes from busy bureaucrats at their desks dreaming up more ways to ban, harass and tax those who dare to produce, advertise, sell or consume a legal product like tobacco, which has given pleasure and profit to millions of people for hundreds of years.

There is also considerable doubt about the health hazards of passive smoking. A symposium on “sick buildings” in Brisbane recently heard the results of a long and detailed US study of air quality, smoking policies and the occurrence of “sick building symptoms”. This study covered 27 buildings with 5 different smoking policies and over 4,000 employees. They found that the sick building symptom was not related to smoking policies or air quality but was associated with occupational factors such as stress, job satisfaction and the employee’s perception of air quality. Stressed employees who thought the air quality was bad got headaches. Unstressed and satisfied employees did not. There are no sick buildings — just sick people, and in fact, the study showed that there were more sick people in government offices than in private offices (even in the same air in the same buildings). Maybe all that red tape gives them headaches too?

This is not an area for legislation. Employees, employers, owners and customers must all choose whether they prefer a smoke-free environment and what they are prepared to pay for it. If there is a demand, it will be supplied. If not, government has no right to insist on it.

Not content with harassing smokers and coercing employers, governments are now trying to ban all advertising of perfectly legal products. If this outrage is constitutional, we must have a useless constitution.

The essence of the smoking question is not tobacco or health. The issue is whether a sect of puritanical zealots has the right to use the force of government to interfere in sport sponsorship, advertising and our private pleasures on the dubious grounds that they have a monopoly on medical knowledge and the right to decide what is best for our health. Today it is smoking — what is tomorrow — alcohol, coke, chocolate or sky diving? (they may fall on someone). This fight is not about smoking — it is about freedom. The duty of government is to protect us from public assault, not to prosecute us from private indulgence.

Tell them to get out of our pockets and out of our private lives.