In recent years it's been refreshing to see how many countries have passed legislation to outlaw smoking in public places. These laws have been motivated by countless pieces of research which have demonstrated beyond doubt that passive smoking, through which non-smokers are exposed to cigarette smoke in confined areas, has caused many, many deaths.
One hero of mine died this way. Allan Carr wrote books advising people on how to give up smoking. Without reading his book I'd have never been able to give up. Allan had a principle which he applied throughout his books and throughout his 'Give up smoking' workshops. It was a simple one. The smoker can continue smoking whilst he or she is reading the book or attending the workshop. He or she will only have to stop smoking when he or she reaches the end of the book or the end of the workshop.
The problem for Allan was that for years he gave workshops in smokey conference rooms in which nervous smokers, on the verge of giving up, were anxiously puffing away. Last year Allan died of lung cancer. Yes, ironically, the man who helped millions to kick the habit, almost certainly died of passive smoking twenty years after he himself had given up.
I've been impressed by the way in which laws prohibiting smoking in public places have been respected by the public. Everywhere in the developed world, we see bars, restaurants and offices where smokers huddle together outside the exits and fire escapes to smoke their cigarettes, leaving the non-smokers inside to enjoy cleaner air.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think any reasonable person would make an arguement against this legislation, especially if smokers are provided with areas inside buildings in which they can smoke in peace. I smoked for long enough to know that smokers see themselves as quite an oppressed group sometimes, who just want to be able to enjoy their simple pleasure. Nor would anyone argue against the government health warnings which tobacco companies are obliged to place on cigarette packets.
No, without doubt, here we have witnessed a development in enlighted legisation which should be applied to other areas of life.
For example, what about extending this treatment to vehicles which burn fossil fuels? The air in our towns and cities is full of poisons with levels regularly above the acceptable limits set by the World Health Organization. This pollution is largely due to the presence of vehicles which burn fossil fuels. For example, in Rome there is probably one of the highest percentages of vehicle ownership in the world, with about 75 vehicles per 100 residents. These vehicles make the air unbreatheable near the major roads and junctions. In a recent survey, it was found that an alarmingly high proportion of Roman traffic wardens, who spend their entire working lives in the middle of the traffic, have developed tumors of the lungs. The rates of asthma for children in the city is alarmingly high as well.
In a city like Rome, in which there is little manufacturing industry, the percentage of air pollution owing to vehicle use is probably higher than in other, more industrialized cities. Here I want to draw a link between this sad state of affairs and the passive smoking debate.
Sitting in his or her air-conditioned car, the driver is shielded from the exhaust emissions of their chosen activity. Pedestrians, cyclists and even motorcyclists breathe in the exhaust emissions. In this respect, the driver is even more selfish than the smoker in a restaurant, because at least the smoker also breathes in the foul smoke. In an air-conditioned car, the driver is totally protected from the air pollution that he or she produces whilst the children walking past on their way to school breathe in the foul air.
An exaggeration? Well, a few weeks ago, because of a public transport strike, I had to use my bicycle to navigate Rome's seven hills whilst visiting my students. I returned home that evening and my face was black with dirt from vehicle exhaust emissions.
The air surrounding major roads and junctions in our towns and cities is every bit as polluted as the air inside a bar or restaurant in which people are smoking, so I can't understand why legislators have intervened to reduce the risks of passive smoking for non-smokers, whilst not taking action to protect non-drivers from the risks of passive driving!
I'm not saying that car drivers are selfish, but I'm sure that car driving is a selfish activity. Now, at this point I must make an admission. I drive regularly and I love it. I realise that many people have no option but to drive, especially those who have limited mobility or live far from public transport networks. But the poor citizen who walks, uses a bicycle or public transport and in doing so is responsible for little or no pollution (and probably represents an example for the rest of us to follow in order to save the planet) suffers more than the vehicle driver the negative consequences of vehicle pollution. Is this fair?
It's a selfish activity. What's more, to underline how selfish an activity car driving is, what about airbags? The airbag is always positioned on the inside of the car, therefore being positioned so as to protect the person more often than not responsible for causing the accident. This is great. It saves lives. But what about the poor person being run over by the driver? The car manufacturer offers them no such protection! If car driving isn't a selfish activity, why aren't the airbags also fitted on the outside of the vehicle to protect the person mown over by the driver of the vehicle?
Then of course we need to add the thousands of cases every year in which pedistrians are killed while innocently crossing the road by drivers who lack attention or who have been drinking or taking drugs.
I haven't even mentioned the damage caused to the ozone layer and increased carbon levels resulting from driving vehicles that burn fossil fuels.
What can we do about this problem? Maybe we should insist that car manufacturers write in large letters on their vehicles "Government Health Warning: Passive Driving Can Kill" and send people to classes in which they are helped in their attempts to 'Give up driving'. After all, it's a filthy habit which makes the air dirty and kills thousands of people every year!!
Maybe Fiat or Ferrari could sponsor such classes here in Rome?
One hero of mine died this way. Allan Carr wrote books advising people on how to give up smoking. Without reading his book I'd have never been able to give up. Allan had a principle which he applied throughout his books and throughout his 'Give up smoking' workshops. It was a simple one. The smoker can continue smoking whilst he or she is reading the book or attending the workshop. He or she will only have to stop smoking when he or she reaches the end of the book or the end of the workshop.
The problem for Allan was that for years he gave workshops in smokey conference rooms in which nervous smokers, on the verge of giving up, were anxiously puffing away. Last year Allan died of lung cancer. Yes, ironically, the man who helped millions to kick the habit, almost certainly died of passive smoking twenty years after he himself had given up.
I've been impressed by the way in which laws prohibiting smoking in public places have been respected by the public. Everywhere in the developed world, we see bars, restaurants and offices where smokers huddle together outside the exits and fire escapes to smoke their cigarettes, leaving the non-smokers inside to enjoy cleaner air.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think any reasonable person would make an arguement against this legislation, especially if smokers are provided with areas inside buildings in which they can smoke in peace. I smoked for long enough to know that smokers see themselves as quite an oppressed group sometimes, who just want to be able to enjoy their simple pleasure. Nor would anyone argue against the government health warnings which tobacco companies are obliged to place on cigarette packets.
No, without doubt, here we have witnessed a development in enlighted legisation which should be applied to other areas of life.
For example, what about extending this treatment to vehicles which burn fossil fuels? The air in our towns and cities is full of poisons with levels regularly above the acceptable limits set by the World Health Organization. This pollution is largely due to the presence of vehicles which burn fossil fuels. For example, in Rome there is probably one of the highest percentages of vehicle ownership in the world, with about 75 vehicles per 100 residents. These vehicles make the air unbreatheable near the major roads and junctions. In a recent survey, it was found that an alarmingly high proportion of Roman traffic wardens, who spend their entire working lives in the middle of the traffic, have developed tumors of the lungs. The rates of asthma for children in the city is alarmingly high as well.
In a city like Rome, in which there is little manufacturing industry, the percentage of air pollution owing to vehicle use is probably higher than in other, more industrialized cities. Here I want to draw a link between this sad state of affairs and the passive smoking debate.
Sitting in his or her air-conditioned car, the driver is shielded from the exhaust emissions of their chosen activity. Pedestrians, cyclists and even motorcyclists breathe in the exhaust emissions. In this respect, the driver is even more selfish than the smoker in a restaurant, because at least the smoker also breathes in the foul smoke. In an air-conditioned car, the driver is totally protected from the air pollution that he or she produces whilst the children walking past on their way to school breathe in the foul air.
An exaggeration? Well, a few weeks ago, because of a public transport strike, I had to use my bicycle to navigate Rome's seven hills whilst visiting my students. I returned home that evening and my face was black with dirt from vehicle exhaust emissions.
The air surrounding major roads and junctions in our towns and cities is every bit as polluted as the air inside a bar or restaurant in which people are smoking, so I can't understand why legislators have intervened to reduce the risks of passive smoking for non-smokers, whilst not taking action to protect non-drivers from the risks of passive driving!
I'm not saying that car drivers are selfish, but I'm sure that car driving is a selfish activity. Now, at this point I must make an admission. I drive regularly and I love it. I realise that many people have no option but to drive, especially those who have limited mobility or live far from public transport networks. But the poor citizen who walks, uses a bicycle or public transport and in doing so is responsible for little or no pollution (and probably represents an example for the rest of us to follow in order to save the planet) suffers more than the vehicle driver the negative consequences of vehicle pollution. Is this fair?
It's a selfish activity. What's more, to underline how selfish an activity car driving is, what about airbags? The airbag is always positioned on the inside of the car, therefore being positioned so as to protect the person more often than not responsible for causing the accident. This is great. It saves lives. But what about the poor person being run over by the driver? The car manufacturer offers them no such protection! If car driving isn't a selfish activity, why aren't the airbags also fitted on the outside of the vehicle to protect the person mown over by the driver of the vehicle?
Then of course we need to add the thousands of cases every year in which pedistrians are killed while innocently crossing the road by drivers who lack attention or who have been drinking or taking drugs.
I haven't even mentioned the damage caused to the ozone layer and increased carbon levels resulting from driving vehicles that burn fossil fuels.
What can we do about this problem? Maybe we should insist that car manufacturers write in large letters on their vehicles "Government Health Warning: Passive Driving Can Kill" and send people to classes in which they are helped in their attempts to 'Give up driving'. After all, it's a filthy habit which makes the air dirty and kills thousands of people every year!!
Maybe Fiat or Ferrari could sponsor such classes here in Rome?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment