A letter in the SCMP this morning from James Griffiths of Kennedy Town commences with the line, “I write to express my frustration at the smoking ban that is now in force in all bars in Hong Kong. ” As a smoker myself, I can understand his frustration. For almost 2 weeks now, I have been forced to spend almost 30 seconds walking from my bar stool to the exit, to stand on the street by myself watching pretty girls walk past or striking up conversations with other smokers for several minutes while feeding my incessant nicotine addiction. The horror!

Mr. Griffith says, “I am a smoker and I know the risks involved. However, we live in a democracy (or a kind of democracy), where we can choose what to do as long as it does not affect or impact others around us.” I wonder if he was drunk when writing that section?

“Why not give an option to bars to be smoking establishments. Perhaps a few of these bars could be designated in different parts of the city and they could pay a fee. ” Think this through, James. Let’s say there are 1,000 bars on HK island. Let’s say the government decides to issue 50 licenses for smoking establishments. The 950 bars that don’t get a license will surely not mind. They’ll just quietly accept this and go about their business, won’t they? And most of these bars serve food as well, but the surrounding 5,000 restaurants won’t complain about any inequity either, right?

I have no doubt that any bar or restaurant that could legally allow smoking would be extremely popular. But I don’t think the owners of these places want the government to be able to choose which ones of them are allowed to sanction smoking and which ones don’t. And I wouldn’t want that either. It’s all or nothing at all as far as I’m concerned. It has to be a situation where there is either no choice or the choice is left up to the owner of the establishment. That is what you get in a “kind of democracy.”

Mr. Griffiths says he will now stay home to drink and smoke, rather than going out. And then this bit: “This is a shame, because when I go out I spend at least HK$1,000 in a bar, maybe another HK$500 on food and HK$50 on taxis. ” He spends $1,000 in a bar in a single evening just on drink? Assuming for the moment that money isn’t being spent on commission drinks for women in Wanchai bars, he thinks his biggest problem is that he can’t smoke in a bar? I think his liver must be happy for the vacation it’s now getting.

In all seriousness, as a heavy smoker who has tried to quit unsuccessfully many times, the first thing I know is not to force my smoke on others. Secondhand smoke or not, I know that most non-smokers find it objectionable.

The second thing I know is that this ban will eventually be all but global and is not likely to be rolled back in Hong Kong or anywhere else. I don’t think that arguing that the ban is inconvenient is likely to change anyone’s mind. And I suspect that if Mr. Griffiths does indeed spend so much in a single night in a bar, he’s not permanently going to switch to doing all his drinking at home. Give him a couple of weeks and he’ll be right back out there again.

Let’s just be thankful that we don’t live in places like certain counties in California where even smoking at home – if you live in an apartment building – is illegal!

Hongkie Town
Share