There is a very famous piece of news video in which the CEOs of the largest cigarette manufacturers in America stand before the US Congress and claim not to believe that cigarette smoking is injurious to the health of those inhaling the smoke. No matter how often one sees the footage, one's sense of incredulity never diminishes. Of course, the obvious truth is that those men knew full well the damage inflicted on cigarette smoke and could only claim a ludicrous belief in the innocence of tobacco smoke in causing cancer, emphysema and heart disease because doing otherwise may well have left them open to serious criminal charges. An article in yesterday's Saudi Gazette made it clear that not only the American CEOs of tobacco companies are capable of appearing ludicrous when defending tobacco. The Ministry of Health appears to be ready to move towards a ban on smoking in public places and as, perversely, can be expected, there are those who object to such restrictions. But just as the defense of smokers in any other country can only be made in the hollowest of arguments, the same happens here. One woman chose to call restrictions on public smoking “undemocratic” while another person, a nurse, no less, raised the question of smokers' “rights.” Not only is it mind-boggling that such terms would come up only in the defense of an activity that has been proven to cause incurable lung damage that ultimately be fatal, it is mind-boggling that any defense whatsoever of smoking can be even hinted at. The simple fact that restrictions will be placed on where and when someone can light up is in itself a recognition of the fact of contemporary life that people smoke. It is a clear recognition that the proper approach to tobacco – an outright ban – is both unreasonable, untenable and impossible. After all, the very government that is restricting smoking is also permitting the sales of a known carcinogen. In this case, culture and social habits trump public health, at least, for the time being. Simply put, people do have the right to smoke because it became an ingrained part of society before its horrendous effects were made evident. But just because we only learned about the importance of washing our hands or covering our mouths when we sneeze in the past 200 years or so, does that mean we should ignore that knowledge, too? __
