#1 I'd just gotten a new job - and was struggling - when the smoke ban came into force in England. Despite the owner managers mostly being smokers and near enough 'one of us'' I was taken aback by the tone of the company statement - very strident and making no attempt to inform that this was pushed on them by Govt. Some in management, it seemed, preferred the extra 'authority' the legislation conferred.
Not all the lads were smokers but in an atmosphere where machinery and activity of alsorts makes the air 'dirty' then our little stick of filth kept us happy; ditto shopfloor pots of tea/coffee/drinking chocolate/etc from the vending machine or 'spice' (the archaic but charming term for sweets up here) - all these are no-nos going by what's 'reasonably practicable'. A blind eye is occasionally turned as no-one in their right mind wants to see the workforce disgruntled, although some places have a preference for keeping the men just on the edge.
The blind eye doesn't include cigarettes and practically overnight the place was festooned with various authoritarian 'No Smoking!!' posters and stickers; so much that smoking must be the worst thing anyone could possibly do. Ever.
We were 'being watched', or led into acquiescencing that we were. Our government attempted to pull an even faster one and get us all policing each other - or else!
'Or else' meant fines of some £50 to the smokee and £2500 to the proprietor but not to worry as my 'on side' health and safety rep told me 'I'll make sure that if they fine you that they get fined two 'n' 'alf grand!'. Whoopee; I can barely catch my breath.
The press brake operator, was gutted; he practically lived for his fags. 'Fuck 'em' he said, 'I'm gonna put the guards back on the press'. The supervisor (like Tommy Cooper but without the looks. And not as funny) said 'if I catch you working without guards on your machine then you'll be disciplined' - pfff!?! 'I've not had the guards on for 12 years, you s*@%> f€¡^!' quoth Al, the operator.
Truth is, we're not as daft as we look and complex and intrusive guards often make life more awkward than not. They may even cause an operator to use energies inefficiently where they could concentrate on being effective in their work and able to determine safe methods of working for themselves and those around them. We do go to work to earn a living don't we?
Al was even more pissed off that his beloved, smokey boozer seemed threatened - 'everyone' smoked and it was just a lively village pub with nothing of an outside to accommodate new regulation, let alone us smoking ne'er do wells.
I truly hope that boozer's still open.
Mindst, Al, near retirement, may be glad with some newly acquired health - encouraged to eat 5-a-day, cut out the fags and booze and maybe even doing early morning calisthenics with the gaffers.
Hmm?
Cut to Carl, profile burner. Carl makes my eyes water just to think of him. He has a disability with his hip joints and can often be seen limping badly throughout the day - particularly bad in colder weather when the chill stays in the metal and 'radiates' cold. Of course it gets heated up with work but it's bad enough to affect my minor injuries so Lord knows what it's like for older or more infirm people.Carl also has an autistic son who he has to beg to get decent care for and, on top of that, his father needs attention to. All of which is delivered matter-of-factly and without complaint.
He's also there at all hours and travels some distance to do the job. I asked whether he cold have a hip replacement but he told me that it's considered too son. Too soon!, the guy's practically crippled now so ten years down the line when he really needs the operation will see him living a large part of his useful life in pain and not as mobile as he could be.
Pass me the Tai-chi - I'm winding myself up.
And cheers to those that know what's best for us.
#2
Prior to this engagement I'd worked in a smaller fabrication shop and a similar bon-homie (ish) existed. Being more used to this type of work I'd managed to settle in easier (even though one can be an awkward feck). Here the gaffers were largely not bothered about the lads smoking on the floor, though we were all smoking our heads off in the run up.
A senior gaffer minded though and he told me he'd bring it in earlier if he could. He seemed oblivious to other 'risks' - the cramped and cluttered conditions we worked in. True, this was prior to a move to bigger premises and so we generally didn't mind the bit of give and take but even so we were welding, cutting, grinding and occasionally spraying, all in close proximity. Despite the odd grunt we got on with it - it being more norm than exception.
(The new factory is now closer to new built houses, the factory starts at 0700 and they like to be busy enough to work some weekends. See 'coming soon': a pox on all our houses?')
Something of a family business, younger gaffers, perhaps not fuller ingrained into the machinery of management, were much more affable. One told me of when they were first setting up and used to have a game of rugby inside. When it was a small concern, such informality was ' a right laff' but something that falls by the wayside under pressures of running a business and letting us know who's boss.
Next door was a two man fabrication outfit. Given the structure of the building they'd managed to set themselves up handsomely; the place old but clean and cosy. They were both smokers and couldn't believe that legislation meant they had to leave their rarely visited works to have a gasp. Nor that they had to put loads of signs up stating the dangers and dubious legalities of the ban.
In an engineering workshop!?! It being a place of business and therefore open to a public, of sorts, they had to be guarded from this evil.
Am not too sure that a recent arrangement I had whereby having a lodger would make my house into a 'public house' and bound by the same rules. In this instance, it would be patently ridiculous to abide by the ban and go outside as we both smoke and the bulk of either of our friends do. One doesn't like to provide ammo but it can be safely betted that this will be on their cards.
Of course, when particular non-smokers come I voluntarily curtail my habit and even ventilate my house. Fair enough, really.
#3 The Public House
The smoking ban was brought in with much fanfare - it would be better all around, intimidated non-smokers and their families would return in droves, us poor smokers would get help to quit our filthy habit from our representatives in Govt and their lackeys and we'd all be much happier and healthier.
Not much, if any of this, rings true - Public Houses are having a hard time of it these days and many have seen difficult conditions become compounded by the smoking ban. Most trade forums attest to this and talk to any licensee or bar staff and even 'upmarket establishments' tell of a significant drop in takings. Pubs were closing at a trickle before 1/7 but the trend has accelerated to well over a hundred a month now.
Some clubs have seen old non-smoking customers return but certainly not in droves; Wetherspoons, who brought the ban in a year or so before most other pubcos, have seen their takings take a massive dent.
One barman in a non-boozer type pub told me 'Yes, there are some new faces and takings are down but we can cope'. Others, not so. Many publicans have other jobs or subsidise a meagre living by eating with the sports teams. In many places pubs end up subsidising their diminishing clientele by using their savings to keep the place cosy.
On the few occasions I visit pubs it's often the case there are more customers having a gasp outside than in and the pub itself has no atmosphere. Of all the notices this Govt has come out with the one that states 'It's an offence to smoke on these premises' particularly galls. Offensive to the majority who huddle outside of doorways and those not bothered inside? or well paid (out of our taxes) enforcement officers minded by a gaggle of proper coppers on double time and our holier-than-thou government?
Many pubs have bent over backwards to satisfy their smoking customers and maintain their business. Some have parted with lots of cash having built shelters but only to see them fall foul of strict regulations as to siting and construction. Also, anyone having a bit of banter and a laugh - surely that's what pubs are for? - can find they contravene noise regulations and end up in court.
Not happy with that there are calls to remove patio heaters as our comfort gives way to concern about the environment - a bigger topic but one related inasmuch as the reasoning behind it is that us humans want too much out of life and are destroying the planet with our selfish ways.
It's unlikely there'll be a perfect shelter as new regulations mooted to remove vending machines from pubs (pubs!?!) and shops where they'll be on show to the slavish gives the implication that 'we' are to be not seen, not heard and, preferably, non-existent. Back behind the bike sheds then?
Truly, we're being treat like kids.
What's next? - already there are similar campaigns afoot as regards drinking - even passive drinking! - and the food we eat, where we want to travel to and even what we can talk about.
It seems this Govt is only too happy to see pubs die out - they make a killing on stamp duty and other taxes when public houses are redeveloped into expensive and crammed private houses - or 'exclusive' appartments as they're now called. They are barely worthy of being called houses but it seems they're good enough for us - if we can afford them. (The only thing exclusive about them seems to be the price tag.)
#4 Giving up?
A landlady - a smoker - said her pub is very easy to clean now the ashtrays are gone. That's a shame as the pub is also a tool of her trade and obviously not being used as purposed. How long before the beer lines and glasses become redundant? Then nothing to clean at all and no business.
Some smokers even welcome the ban as they 'wanted to cut down anyway' and one smoker said he's in favour as all the smokers now have plenty to talk about and things are generally more sociable in the shelter - for now.
I smoke (quite a lot these days . . ) and most of the time I enjoy it; occasionally it's something to do - space filler, pause for thought or claiming a little part of my working day for myself.
Sometimes I want to stop - morning dog breath (perhaps more old beagles mainly - that's a brand name, surely?), when a little breathless or for financial reasons, seemingly.
Seemingly, but then maybe the anti-smoking campaign is getting to me?
Should I decide to stop then it will be my decision and not rammed down my throat by people with far dodgier habits.
I used to be a keen 'mountain' bike rider and spent enough time and money in the effort. I was never anything special or daring yet managed to pick up a fair share of injury, but nothing in comparison to young bloods who practically ride down cliff faces or batter themselves on stunt ramps. To these guys a pinned leg or arm is displayed almost as a trophy and such injuries, when commonplace, aid development of medical techniques.
It's good that the young, and not so, push the boundaries of excitement and are prepared to face injury in the process. It's also preferable that injury comes, as it surely will, from pastimes and not war time and that medical technique develops accordingly. **Facial reconstructive surgery due to WW1 trench warfare and a high number of head casualties led to the development of today's cosmetic surgery.**
It's particularly rich when smokers are constantly harangued for costs associated with our habit. Smoking related illnesses most often occur in older age when we are susceptible to all manner of ailments anyway and given that smokers contribute healthily to the exchequer and die younger then we're hardly a burden.
Further, lung ailments are disproportionately underfunded due to an association with smoking - regardless of whether the illness is due to smoking.
Not only do we prop up the health service but we get little in return. And, should smoking be fully stamped out, where will tax revenues come from?
#5
The ban itself and what's to follow seems disproportionately aimed at the white working class. It seems we are being blamed for the ills of society rather than it lacking direction. Politics used to be far more polarised with the right standing for the prowess of individuals as a driver to take society forward and the left seeking to ameliorate the conditions worked under, distribute wealth evenly and we all prosper accordingly. Sort of.
The truth probably lies between the two but such ideologies are more bound by the economic system we live under rather than determining the paths individuals and society take.
Such ideas have now collapsed and politics is much less about raising aspiration and more about restraint - a point seemingly lost with Gordon Brown's cynical parading of Margaret Thatcher prior to the Conservatives conference. Her popularity came through her appeal to raise our material aspirations and ditch the cloying hand of Old Labour.
Mainstream parties have lost their moorings and now have no idea how to take society forward. Whether the smoking ban comes from a lack of ideas and an attempt to reconnect with our assumed concerns, or those of a vocal minority, or something to do with moulding us into shape to take on new challenges is debateable.
I hold that it's mainly the latter and as much a knowing nod to recessionary tendencies and austerity. What better way to control us than to make out our desire for material wealth is ultimately destructive to the planet, ourselves and everything else?
As such, smoking is an obvious target as it serves no 'real' purpose. It's not necessary to smoke and is quite literally a throwaway habit. It's not the healthiest of things to do either. When we start to look at what we need to do in order to function in our day to day lives then all manner of things fall by the wayside and a good deal become luxury or superfluous. However, we are more than mere animal and our needs and desires are influenced in many complex and interconnected ways - and much more so than, say, mere advertising.
#The white working class and the BNP.
At a Meanwood WMC meeting a woman informed us that muslims were behind the smoking ban and that the BNP stood up against it. Now, they are very much an opportunist lot, and it would be good if they did. But no, a search of their site revealed nothing other than a sentence in an interview with Nick Griffiths, vaguely saying people should have choice in the matter.
It shouldn't really be that much of a surprise as a previous fund drive of theirs asked for sympathisers to donate the price of a pint - only for this to be later replaced by a more responsible cup of tea. Not too much ambition there then.It seems that attempts to cleanse their image and project decency and responsibility leave their hands tied when it comes to defending an element of traditional white working class culture - the social life we choose.
Shame really given that It's St. George's day and many would no doubt like to celebrate the matter - with a pint and fag, in comfort in the Kings Arms, Redoubt, Waterloo, Imperial, Duke of Wellington . . . . damn! - they're all fighting names aren't they? Or the Coopers', Weavers', Smiths' and various other, Arms - all names suggestive of trade and relaxing after a days toil. Trouble with the BNP is they can't see much further than portraying the white masses as hapless victims of migrant hordes undermining 'our way of life'. Big cop out given that all this legislation comes from an angst ridden and, on the whole, white Govt with little idea other than to squeeze us.
I tried to see whether there was any mileage to be gained from this on a brief visit to Dewsbury pubs where they have some presence. I'm pretty sure that the first barman spoken to was 'one of them' given what he was talking about and we got no further than him blaming everything on foreigners. Not everyone in Dewsbury is a card carrying member of the BNP though, in fact they're pretty marginal other than securing a howl of indignation vote. Not to say though that the BNP have no role to play as they at least believe they are looking out for the concerns of their kith, kin and countrymen. Shame then that they are predisposed to lay society's problems at the feet of others at the bottom of the pile and cling to past versions of what they despise today. All that pomp, ceremony and sense of duty - to what?
They ought to be careful as coercive measures to inform our choices already seek to determine what we can say out loud and the BNP, being 'everyone's favourite bogeyman, may find themselves banned.
Looking around the old buildings of Dewsbury reveals an industrial past; a time when society was forging ahead and offered the masses a chance to better themselves. Dewsbury still has it's industry but nothing on a grand scale and the place is now under scrutiny for regenerative investment. Regeneration schemes come under the guise of the government's renaissance agenda - a desire to gentrify 'place' and us along with it. At its root this includes shoehorning us into distinct and passive individuals following a path set down by them and little room for personal expression.
It's much more likely that this will lead to further disharmony as it requires us to acquiesce to coercive measures and almost stop thinking for ourselves. It also appears counterintuitive as the relentless focus on personal behaviour replaces it with much more of the same. Look at food programmes - we're told we eat too much and what we do eat is rubbish so there are no end of cooking programmes - food, glorious food and much of it labeled organic, local or 'sustainable' on very dubious terms.
It wouldn't be too bad if the Govt had a track record that bears scrutiny and lofty decisions could be left to them whilst we get on with ordering our messy affairs. Perhaps I'm looking at things the wrong way around?
Decency and responsibility in our lives can only come so much from the individual. Even in hard times there are those who will prosper but for society as a whole to move forwards requires less inward soul searching and a grander project.
# Just a brief mention of UKIP and no particular sleight intended.
Like any political organisation UKIP may have their faults but in the case of the smoking ban they seem to be the only party making a stand for liberty. This isn't some god given right to blow smoke in the faces of babies but a determining of choice and development of tolerance between people - and what could be wrong with that?
Jason Smith, candidate for Queensbury, told me he was taken aback by the strength of feeling against the ban and when canvassing pubs was practically carried aloft by cheering punters - not bad for a ginner.
With only some 25% of the population being smokers, yet 67% opposed to an outright ban* - two and a half times the amount of smokers - that seems to be healthy grounds for questioning the assumptions behind the ban and perhaps a vehicle for democracy. *(ONS 2006 survey)
I'm no supporter of UKIP but seriously wish them well on this - who knows? we may even get the necessary debate on the pros and cons of our leaders attachment to the European Union.
(To edit . . )
