The issues surrounding the banning of smoking in public and the more recent flurries about banning on-stage smoking have been regularly hitting the headlines for most of this year.
Although the anti-smoking legislation did not finally make it onto the English stage, it has firmly situated itself between the audience and the theatrical event in Scotland and Ireland. Wales also looks set to follow the rest of the UK in legislating towards a smoke-free world.
The Guardian‘s Mark Lawson cites the relaxation of UK film censorship laws in the late ‘90s as coinciding with an assortment of zealous missionary-style public health drives. At that time, local film directors joked that it would soon be possible to have anal sex on screen provided the lovers did not smoke in bed afterwards.
This of course poses many questions, but perhaps one of the more interesting ones is: What is the meaning of this kind of legislative activity? And how does it shape and define the public realm? It is at moments such as these that the issue of cultural relativism rears its head. What is good for whom? When, where and for how long? And who will decide? It also serves to alert us to the potential dangers of allowing the over-legislating of public life; something that our current politicians seem addicted to.
Often it is change itself and the rate of that change that shapes public reactions. But equally significant is the patronising cast of many governmental agendas. As a result of numerous legislative ‘fiddles’ in the last decade, our public lives have become more and more scrutinised and even, one could argue, overbearingly controlled. The long-held liberal view that adults (provided they are not completely barking mad) can make informed choices seems to have gone out the window.
Humanity has a long history of cultural hiccups when it comes to exploring potentially contentious material. In the 21st century, few would defend Aztec sacrifice, but the more grey the area, the more subtle the issues, the more difficulty it is to negotiate them.
Not only that, but in the place of the liberal-minded position comes an increasingly sanctimonious and politically correct agenda. This has given rise to a kind of overkill that often results in laws and situations that would be funny, if they were not downright alarming.
This week, smoking in cars has emerged as the new face of public protest in Scotland. In addition, members of the public and the theatre world have vowed to defy the bans. This includes organisers and venue managers of the Edinburgh Fringe who have called upon the government to cease what they are calling ‘theatre censorship’.
In New Zealand, Russell Crowe, the actor, openly flouted smoking bans. In April, whilst on tour with his band, The Ordinary Fear of God, Crowe smoked on stage. Crowe himself was not fined, but his actions resulted in fines for the venue owners who hosted his performances.
Meanwhile, back in Scotland, the smoking conundrum has assumed vast proportions and now even includes a ban on herbal cigarettes – long used by actors who do not smoke. Responding strongly to the new legislation, Scottish playwright John Byrne (a prize-winning writer and the partner of acclaimed actress Tilda Swinton) has stated that he will produce his works elsewhere if push comes to shove.
Which of course begs the question: How silly will it have to get before we can agree that it is too silly? And how then does a government deal with inappropriate legislation in-situ? Given the Blair government’s continual drive to promote and support the Creative industries and their role in economic regeneration – it does indeed seem like odd timing.
The Government’s desire to safeguard the health of the nation is a necessary and laudable thing. However, you could also argue that heavy-handed law-making is increasingly taking governments into dangerous waters.
British Artist David Hockney came out fighting; Hockney took his anger against the government’s plans to ban smoking in most public places right into the Labour Party Conference. Speaking on behalf of the smokers’ lobby group Forest, he told BBC Radio’s Today programme that those proposing a ban were, ‘absolutely dreary’.
Ms Morgan, the Minister for Health responded by saying that it was important to protect people who did not smoke, especially staff in smoke-filled environments. She also cited the interests of children and asthma as a potential complication for those exposed to passive smoke inhalation.
However, Hockney retorted: “Death awaits you whether you smoke or not. Pubs are not health clubs. People go to drown their sorrows. We could save a lot more lives if we refuse to serve alcohol…This is ridiculous. It’s bossy.”
Forest’s Director, Simon Clark, who heads the pro-smoking lobby group, said: “The British public have repeatedly said that they want politicians to keep a sense of perspective when legislating on smoking in public places. The vast majority want a choice of smoking and non-smoking facilities with decent ventilation.”
“It would be ludicrous to censor smoking on stage given our tolerance for sex and violence,” argued Mark Lawson. “There are numerous activities that, though illegal or discouraged in real life, have long been tolerated in theatrical performance: including murder, the plucking out of the Earl of Gloucester’s eyes and the abandonment of infants in handbags at railway terminuses. Yet, through centuries of performance, no need has been felt for warnings in theatre programmes advising patrons not to try these things at home.”
Smoking on stage has of course had its reprieve in England at least. Assisted by a loophole found in the legislation, it has meant that actors will still be able to smoke to their heart’s content – on stage at any rate. And even Big Brother is finally readying itself to warn its viewers of the potential dangers of cigarettes.
The entire world of drawing-room drama, comedy and farce; from Wilde to Coward and beyond, has been rescued from a fate worse than death: the lack of sophistication credentials as embodied by smoking. In fact many dramas from the last century, promote the idea that smoking is the preserve of the liberal, sexy and sophisticated individual.
And for all the anxiety about corrupting young minds and their lungs, does anyone really believe that young teens will rush out to buy a packet of fags after seeing a Noel Coward play at The National? Well, according to research into adolescent influences and the resultant behaviour – that actually is the problem. Teens may not emulate stage actors, but they will certainly emulate their filmic heroes. At the age when almost anything can be sacrificed for peer approval, experts are saying that fewer images of film stars smoking could contribute to fewer adolescents feeling the need to emulate such adult behaviours.
It is a well known fact that tobacco industries have long-courted the film world with Mephistopholean bags of money. In a bid to stop the ‘product placement’ activities of large tobacco corporations, health officials and government agencies are now demanding that the secret deals made between film distributors and the tobacco industry, be brought under tighter legislative controls.
According to some research sources, as many as 200,000 adolescents per year take up smoking as a direct result of viewing films. A disturbingly high figure and one which points to the issue of choice. How much choice does a teenager actually have when encouraged to comply with such manufactured cultural images of ‘coolness’?
There are of course, no easy answers here. Just questions. Which need to be discussed and debated within communities in order to find appropriate answers and compromises.
