Noone disputes the statistics. Smoking causes cancer, heart disease and lung ailments such as bronchitis and emphysema. Some 20 percent of all male deaths in developed countries during the second half of the 20th century have been attributed to tobacco. Nor are all the victims of tobacco themselves smokers. Surveys have repeatedly shown that "passive smokers" — those who live and work in smoky environments — have a risk of contracting lung cancer between 10 percent and 30 percent greater than that of other nonsmokers. This was the main rationale for the ban: to protect those workers, such as bar and restaurant staff, whose jobs exposed them to second hand smoke.

Remarkably, such bans have come into force in Europe despite the vested interests of governments in tobacco sales, which generate considerable sums in tax revenue. The tax levied on tobacco in the United Kingdom is among the highest in the world, amounting to around 80 percent again of the market price of a pack of 20 cigarettes, and bringing over $15 billion a year to the Treasury. A policy decision bound to reduce that revenue cannot have been taken lightly.

The fact that no comparable measures have been taken in Japan, where the only antismoking legislation has been implemented by individual urban wards, may testify to the Japanese government's vested interest in tobacco. Until 1985, Japan Tobacco was a state-owned monopoly. The Ministry of Finance retained a controlling interest — two thirds of the corporation — until 2004, and still owns a 50 percent share. But to dwell on that may be unduly cynical. In this issue, at least, those who place a value on individual freedoms should acknowledge that Japanese policy is more liberal than that in most Western countries.

The British policy is a symptom of a creeping authoritarianism in the nation's political life. An outright public ban was not the only option. Antismoking laws in Italy and the Netherlands permit tobacco use in separate, specially ventilated rooms: a policy that acknowledges the health danger to workers in smoke-filled environments while respecting the personal freedom of smokers. Britain has ignored such possibilities of compromise. Indeed, a public ban may well be only the first step. The respected medical journal, The Lancet, has called for a complete ban on the sale and consumption of tobacco: an aim shared by Britain's Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson. Libertarian journalist Simon Jenkins flippantly suggested that a logical progression would be to ban household pets, since medical studies have shown that they spread disease and allergies.

More seriously, there is a disjunction between government treatment of tobacco and the treatment of alcohol. Opening hours for British pubs have recently been extended, despite a growing problem of binge drinking. True, no one dies of "passive drinking"; but then, nor has anyone ever been killed because a driver's judgment was impaired by a cigarette. The recently published British Crime Survey linked half of all violent crimes to alcohol use. The secondary effects of alcohol can kill, as surely as can those of tobacco.

What then is the obvious difference between these two legal drugs? Plainly, that one is more popular than the other. A majority of British citizens drink while only about a quarter of the population consists of regular smokers. To tackle the excessive consumption of alcohol would have serious electoral consequences; to regulate smoking is an electoral asset. Polls have shown substantial majorities in favor of the ban.

But a liberal democracy is supposed to protect minority rights as well as to implement the will of the majority. The American statesman Adlai Stevenson knew as much when he defined a free society as one "where it is safe to be unpopular." He would have seen the sinister undertones in this decision to impose good behavior through legislation.

The Japan Times Weekly: July 28, 2007
(C) All rights reserved