Smoking Gets Even Tougher in New York City...

I guess I am having an unhealthy night...

New York City under the guidance of Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned smoking in bars, restaurants, and other public indoor areas way back in 2002 (has he been in the big seat that long already?). This caused a little bit of a public outcry about the trampling of smoker's rights. However, that has seemingly passed. Nevertheless, it has taken the Bloomberg administration a very long time to become emboldened enough to take the next step and ban smoking in open public spaces.

Bloomberg has signed a law that bans smoking in all city parks, beaches, public plazas and boardwalks. If you get caught smoking in any of these places once the law comes into full force and effect, in about 90 days, there is a USD 50 fine. I am a non-smoker, so in the big scheme of things a ban of this nature bothers me nought. Yet, the reasoning for the ban is to protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking. Now, I am sure most people can appreciate that passive smoking or being forced to suck-up the second-hand smoke from a smoker's cigarette in a confined space like a bar or restaurant is considerably different from smoking in a large open space like a beach.

I am no scientist, or chemist for that matter, but is second-hand smoke in a large public place a serious threat to non-smokers? On a slightly different tangent. Where are smokers going to be able to light up their cancer sticks and take the years off their collective lives?

After all, if I am not mistaken, tobacco is a legal product and those who wish to indulge in the habit are, and must be, allowed to do so. So, I wonder, where does Mayor Bloomberg and his health-conscious pencil-pushing tobacco banners proposing that cigarette smokers go to feed their nicotine cravings? Is the expectation that smoking becomes an exclusively home-based activity? Then again, perhaps the next smoking law will ban smoking in all private homes where their are children present.

I have always been intrigued by the argument that smoking is a human right and that restricting where it can occur is tantamount to violating the civil liberties of smokers. I am not quite sure where the balance is for those who do not smoke. So, do the human rights of smokers trump the human rights of non-smokers?

Considering, the ongoing onslaught against smokers to reduce the places where they can indulge, perhaps the answer is to take the plunge and go the whole nine yards; make smoking illegal, make tobacco illegal.

Has Obama Quit Smoking?

Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, has said he has not seen the "Boss" on the cancer sticks for some nine months. However, he knows that the smoking habit (or addiction) is one that the President struggles with on a  daily basis. Yet, there has been some suggestion that Obama has gone "cold turkey" and no longer smokes. Let's face it, if the man was not smoking, he would surely be drinking, right?

But, in all seriousness, good luck to the man. He will be much better for it, if he has indeed pulled the plug and ceased to ingest the toxins that are cigarettes.

I am wondering whether the commander-in-chief quitting the smoking habit is going to have any direct impact on others? Will people take the Obama worship stuff to the level that they will quit too? Conversely, will Republican and Tea Party types start smoking just to prove how anti-Obama they really are?

The mind boggles.

I have never been a smoker. But, I am in support of laws and regulations that restrict where the habit can occur in public places. If smokers want to smoke and kill themselves in the process,then I am fine with that. If they want to argue that they have a human right to kill themselves with tobacco,then I am fine with that. But, if they want to invade my space with nasty cancer-causing fumes, then they are invading and violating my basic human right to life, and that is something they must be restricted from doing.

However, if I am stupid enough to go to a place where smoking is still permitted, legally, such as just about anywhere in Indonesia (although there are regulations in place to protect public facilities, but enforcement is slack), and ingest those nasty fumes then that is a personal choice of mine and the consequences are ones that I must live with.

So, what does the 'big man' say? Well, Obama acknowledges that it is a struggle and that it is one where he has fallen off the wagon on occasion. But, he is not a daily smoker. Giving credit where credit is due. That, sir, is a good start.

The images, if you are wondering, are pulled from the internet. Speaking of which, it would seem that the first two images are mirror reversed and one of them has been photoshopped. Iwill leave it to the experts to work out which one! The last one is really just to suggest that smoking is really like rolling up your own cash and burning it...priceless or pointless?

Kretek Cigarettes, the US, and the WTO...

The Indonesian kretek export sector is destined to take a big hit as the ban imposed on flavoured tobacco products by the US kicks in. The ban is going to significantly, and adversely, effect sales and foreign reserve income from the export of clove flavoured cigarettes between Indonesia and the US.

For the Government of Indonesia, the The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 is going to see about USD 6.5 million in foreign reserves income dry up almost instantly. Therefore, the government has determined that the US Act is in breach of US obligations under WTO agreements and is seeking WTO assistance in resolving the dispute. The essence of the Indonesian claim is that the US is illegally discriminating against Indonesian products (kretek cigarettes). The legal issues will be interesting to watch as they unravel before the WTO Dispute Settlement body in Geneva.

I am not a smoker. I would be happy if smoking was banned on a global scale. That said, I do appreciate that some people may claim to be happy smokers and content with their addiction and any harm that it might be doing to them and those around them. I also appreciate that tobacco is big business and employs a lot of people. This is most definitely the case in Indonesia where labour is cheap and labour laws are not always enforced as they have been enacted (even with the creation of a labour court). The cold hard reality is that many Indonesian workers, and mostly women, will be likely to become redundant now that the US market for clove cigarettes is to all intents and purposes closed for business.

An unfortunate consequence of the enactment of this US Act is not that smoking companies will not be making any money, but rather that this will be used to downsize and make redundant workers who can least afford to become redundant. In the big scheme of things this legislation is going to have noticeable social and economic impacts in the small communities that roll these clove cigarettes for the US market.

I am not confident that the cigarette companies or the Indonesian government will be able to mitigate the hardships that some workers will be forced to endure as a result. With a little bit of help to re-train and re-skill  many of these soon to be redundant workers could remain valuable contributors to a brighter economic future for Indonesia.

Jakarta Smokin' or Smokin' Jakarta?

Those of you that enjoy a nicotine fix need to be a little wary about where you are going to get that next fix during the period from 17 through 27 November 2008. The Government of Jakarta and several Anti-Smoking NGOs have decided that they are going to up the ante on smokers and conduct raids during this period (cartoon).

There is a Regulation, actually a couple of them (No. 2 of 2005 and No. 75 of 2005), that has been issued by the Government of Jakarta that prohibits smoking in certain places and requires businesses and others to provide special smoking rooms to cater for those who cannot go without a nicotine fix.

The places that are most likely to be targeted are office buildings, medical facilities, malls and shopping centers, places of worship, schools, and public transportation, among others. This seems to be an initiative that is being driven more by those concerned with the growing abuse of tobacco rather than any increased interest from the government in terms of implementing the 2005 Regulation.

The cold hard reality is that the government after the initial posting of signs declaring certain areas non-smoking, the government lost interest in enforcement. I remember when the Regulation first came into effect. I was taking a train from Gambir Station to Bandung. As I was waiting for the train to arrive, I remember having a good laugh to myself as I watched a young fella light up and puff away. Why the good laugh? He was standing under one of those no smoking signs, the red circle with a cigarette inside the circle and a red line through it. It was one of those moments, where you go, "nah, this is definitely not going to work."

Even now, each day in the building where I work I watch smokers line the corridors puffing away. There are no designated smoking areas, there are no non-smoking area signs or if there are they are routinely ignored. There is no enforcement from building management or the security personnel roaming the corridors. If I am not mistaken building management can be fined for any failure to enforce the provisions in their buildings.

Let the fun and games begin.