March 19, 2009 at 1:56 am (outraged brain output)
Tags: anti-social, ban, cigarette, opinion, public, radical, second hand, smoke, smoking
This is a controversial; yet not so uncommon, opinion I’ve had for quite a while. But only recently has this issue been brought back to my attention. This issue is smoking. The event that re-ignited my fury against smokers occurred one day while I was eating a sandwich on a bench. Some middle-aged lady comes and sits next to me. There were a few unoccupied benches in the vicinity of this one but, of course, she can sit wherever she wants. What’s not okay is when she took out a cigarette and started smoking, not even bothering to ask whether I would be inconvenienced by that (to be honest I would have honestly said “yes”, however politely she would have asked). What’s worse, it is quite probable that the thought that this would inconvenience me didn’t even come into her considerations. Of course, I promptly left to finish my sandwich elsewhere. This kind of event is the reason I have no sympathy for people who complain about their smoking area in a school being reduced or who invite me to groups on facebook denominated “I bet I can find a thousand people who want smoking back in public places”. Now, to prove that I don’t just simply hate it just because I don’t smoke myself, I will admit that even though I don’t drink alcohol, I have no problem with people drinking (unless they have blatant violent tendencies when drunk). There is an obvious reason that I tolerate drinking but not smoking. Drinking only affects the health of whoever it is who drinks (you could say that this why it is still practised indoors) whereas all that are in the vicinity of smokers have to put up with cigarette smoke whose shown effect goes under the name of “Second hand smoke”. Not to mention other undesirable side effects like your clothes stinking of cigarette and the irritation it might sometime cause in one persons’ throat. Another objectionable aspect of smoking is the asocial behaviour it sometimes provokes. Something that many smokers tend to develop as part of their addiction. Many times, I’ve been to parties where one person decides it’s time for a smoke and decides that they’re probably going to be bored out there on their own. So they get a few people to keep them company as if it was a purely normal thing to do. Well my response to the smoker’s loneliness is “tough shit”. If you really need to smoke that bad, go do it, but don’t disturb the event in progress for your own selfish gain. It’s already pretty anti-social to leave the party for a smoke, so selecting a small crew for that small expedition outside doesn’t make it any better. Especially when that behavior is repeated several times in the course of one night.
So this is basically some of the reasons that push me as far as wishing for a ban on smoking. I have a lot of friends who support this idea, but it’s safe to say that most people would just find this position shocking. Why ? why have I been branded as intolerant for that view ? Is it not true that, in addition to beeing detrimental to the user’s health, it is also detrimental to other people in that person’s close entourage? I could begin to understand it if it had a long term benefit on the user and only posed a short term problem for others. That’s why I don’t like analogies between smoking and the pollution generated by cars for example. Cars are useful. They get you to places very fast (although, I would of course encourage taking the train if possible) and the generated pollution is only but an unfortunate by-product (also, I might add, the exhaust pipe is not pointed at your face). In cigarettes, everything is an unfortunate by-product. No true beneficial purpose is served (you could argue that it provokes temporary relaxation, but at what cost ?). It is often said that if cigarettes had been invented today, they would have been made illegal because of the fact that they are substantially worse than some of the drugs that are, in fact, illegal today. Isn’t that revealing ? It’s another one of those cases where something has existed for so long in our society that is has sunk into general acceptance (this quite nicely makes reference to some of my earlier posts).
Many have argued that it would be quite foolish to make cigarettes illegal because people would still smoke, but they’d do it illegally. The thing is, if it were illegal, it wouldn’t be done out in the open but quite probably in the comfort of one’s home in total discretion. Not in my face. (Maybe a good compromise would be to make it legal to smoke in your own home, I would dread the effect on the other members of the family though).
Leave a Comment
March 14, 2009 at 1:33 am (My life experiences)
Tags: AHS, atheism, atheist, durham, evolution, humanism, humanist, inauguration, Richard Dawkins, science, secular, society, the blind watchmaker, the god delusion, the selfish gene
Some of Durham's Humanist Society members with Richard Dawkins
It is quite interesting to look back and reflect on how short a period it was between the time I first heard about Richard Dawkins and the first time I got the honour to be in his presence. The first exposure I got from this great man was through a University friend, Laurence Dawson, who was reading his very last book, the highly controversial book “The God Delusion”. At that time, I was quite convinced that this would be the kind of book I’d never really bother reading. I was already an atheist at the time, but I wasn’t particularly interested in atheism itself, I was just one of those people that simply couldn’t be satisfied by religious beliefs. Also, having lived in a truly secular country (France) where religious people kept to themselves (albeit the very occasion intolerant Catholic namely one who’d make uneducated remarks such as “I hate Muslims for copying everything from Christianity” and would write on her pencil case “long live God” and “long live the king” [what king ?]), I wasn’t really bothered by religion. France is one of those countries where you don’t have to fake church attendance to get into a good school, because of France’s strong stance on state/church separation (maybe there’s a correlation to be found here with the fact that France has a majority of atheists ?). I later re-discovered Richard Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist and from there, my interest in his work started to grow quite rapidly. The pivotal moment that turned me into a unconditional admirer of the Oxford Professor was when I read “The Selfish Gene”. It was such a wonderful piece of writing that it renewed my interest with the field of Evolutionary Biology. There is so much more to say about the theory of evolution than what is taught in high schools in France (although I wouldn’t be surprised if I heard that this particular chapter of biology was explored in more depth in the French educational system than it was in the UK’s or the US’s). Professor Dawkins was truly a man that knew his subject. In the midst of this newfound interest however, I also started paying more attention to his other message, the one that underlined his strong atheistic stance. At that point in time, intelligent design was creeping its way into the spotlight (and into classrooms), revealing America’s deep ignorance on so simple a theory. I was also taken by surprise by the lengths at which the Christian Union in Durham would go to be heard not only by their own adherents, but by everyone. The provocative “Know Truth” slogans seemed to multiply over a special week that apparently was set up every year. I could easily understand why some of my University friends seemed so hostile towards religion (note I say religion rather than the religious individuals themselves) and the exasperation started to grow on me too. This did eventually spur me on to read “The God Delusion” which turned out to be quite a good read (although it doesn’t beat the genius of “The Selfish Gene” in my opinion). Before Dawkins is blamed for my more radical view of religion, I’d like to point out that I was already generally more outspoken about religion before I even bought the book. It was the plain fact of living in a country where religion still meddled with other non-religious people’s lives and hearing people honestly state their opposition to gay rights that got me started (not to mention the growth of ID on the other side of the Atlantic). The book served only as an amplifier of that opposition. I’ve also read the “the Blind Watchmaker”, another great book (although “The Selfish Gene” remains THE favorite) which ultimately would become the book in my collection that would bare the signature of the author himself.
My opportunity to meet Richard Dawkins came when I joined the Durham Humanist Society. Noticing in first year that the Humanist Society was gathering dust, Laurence and I set out to create our own society, the Rationalist Society. However, to my great delight, the Humanist Society did pick up in my second year at University and I immediately joined, leaving my plans to found my own society behind. Little did I know at the time that I would have the immense pleasure to witness and be part of the creation of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Students Societies which emcompassed 11 societies from different Universities and that at its inauguration in London, I would meet my mentor. I obviously always clung to the hope that we would one day get Richard Dawkins to speak in Durham, but even by my most optimistic predictions, I didn’t really expect him to show up anytime soon. I obviously let out a very vocal burst of excitement when I discovered that I could be part of a trip to London that could very potentially result in seeing the legend in the flesh.There was no doubt as to whether I was going or not. I was going.
And so I went there, I met him. We were in quite a small comittee, things were quite casual. A lot of students conversed quite freely with him. I cannot boast to have said very much to him, being the shy person I am. I did manage to get him to sign my book and participate in our society picture (I got some of my words mixed up on that second request). But what’s important for me is that I got to see him and tell him how much I admired his work. And it has to be said that, for someone who is asked to sign so many books every five minutes, he’s quite a nice person. And now I get to show off my picture with Dawkins and make some of my friends jealous.
Leave a Comment
