Smoking bans and its long-term political and perspectival ramifications

A ban on smoking in enclosed public places has come into effect in Lebanon, prompting sit-in protests by some restaurant and cafe owners.

The ban covers bars, restaurants and cafes where traditional shisha, or hookah, water pipes are ubiquitous.

The law was passed last year and already affects airports, schools and hospitals.
Anyone who breaks the ban faces a $90 (£57) fine. Cafe owners who turn a blind eye could be fined up to $2,700. ~ bbc

Picture a smoking zone, perhaps delineated from the non-smoking hemisphere by a fat yellow line.  Now picture said zone being enclosed by four walls.  Anything wrong with that.  Should the presence of 4 walls and a roof invalidate said yellow box as a smoking zone? 

This is a typical example of the rule of force as opposed to the rule of reason, which reinforces a people’s generic tendency toward following mindlessly as opposed to thinking about where one’s going.

The former, over time and the ebb and tide of generations, accustoms a people to leaving the thinking and the determination of reason to the political ‘professionals'Well, that’s what’s going on in Lebanon. 

I’m not standing up for smokers here, but for goodness sakes, Shisha cafes shouldn’t be subject to the ‘no smoking in enclosed spaces’ law given that the sole purpose and patronage of such cafes is identical to smoking zones.  Well, perhaps the authorities are concerned about the health of Shisha smokers as well and wouldn’t want them to be deprived of proper ventilation.  That can easily be resolved with proper ventilation can it not?  And these 4 walls will also ensure that neighbouring cafes or passers-by aren’t affected by the variably-scented fumes as well.

(the following - due to its importance - will be published as a separate article in the near future)

This is a typical example of the rule of force as opposed to the rule of reason, which reinforces a people’s generic tendency toward following mindlessly as opposed to thinking about where one’s going.  The former, over time and the ebb and tide of generations, accustoms a people to leaving the thinking and the determination of reason to the political ‘professionals’, and indeed, turns the political realm into a profession, a career, as opposed to an administration that is an extension of the will of the people.  Laws, basically, reinforce one or the other.  Hence, questioning laws is an exercise to ensure that the promulgation of Laws is a consequence of popular thought lest the consequence be the gradual cessation of the latter.

Additionally, when governments compromise the rights of one group in a country, what is actually being achieved here is that people are practiced in not bothering about that which does not affect them.  Hence, in this instance, non-smokers might not bother about this issue as it does not affect them.  But that’s when they fall in to the trap.  As the people are practiced in not bothering about another group because the compromise of their rights does not affect them, they are generically practiced in apathy.  Hence, when the rights of their group is compromised in the future, or of the entire nation, you’ll find that, as said, people are so-well practiced in apathy that they’ll focus more on compensating and getting around the ensuing evils instead of feeling along with everyone enough to do something about it (confucian societies, i.e. China, Singapore, are typically and quintessential cases in point.)

...questioning laws is an exercise to ensure that the promulgation of Laws is a consequence of popular thought lest the consequence be the gradual cessation of the latter.So that’s the focus here.  Not the right of smokers, but the need to supersede the rule of force by the rule of reason.  Hence, in this instance, ed is with the smokers of Lebanon, in spirit, if not in proximity.  A designated smoking spot should not cease to be so just because it is enclosed by 4 walls.  Simple as that.  So simple that as i write this, i’m wondering why i’m bothering.  But what has to be said, has to be said.

ed