Brazil's Lula to Sign Drug Decriminalization Decree on Nov. 24

Posted by Al Giordano - November 15, 2004 at 10:43 am

According to a report in today's Folha de São Paulo (subscription only), the government of Brazilian President Lula da Silva has reached a "consensus" to step forward into a bold new era of drug policy: decriminalizing the drug user, and opening 250 safe drug use centers across the country during the year 2005.

Lula is expected to sign an executive decree on November 24, taking drug enforcement responsibilities away from police agencies, and placing the problems of drug use under the jurisdiction of the Health Ministry, which will be charged with supporting the safe drug-use centers and make Harm Reduction - a policy to reduce the harms associated with drug use - the law of the land.

Here is an excerpt from today's report from Brazil's largest daily newspaper:

Policy proposal considers drug consumption as a public health problem, and no longer one for the police
The government wants to create centers for drug use
By Luciana Constantino and Iuri Dantas
Folha de São Paulo, Brasília Bureau
After a series of internal disagreements about drug policy, the federal government is preparing a realignment of national policy to define drug consumption as a public health problem, and not one for the police as it is today.
There will be a presidential order creating rules for treating drug dependents, with emphasis on Harm Reduction...

(More of the translation appears after the jump.)

The new focus will include a change in the name of the policy. It will be changed from "National Anti-Drug Policy" to "National Policy on Drugs."
"Changing the name is a symbol, and there will be a change in orientation. The country is maturing in order to put forward a more pragmatic policy," said Pedro Gabriel Delgado, the government's mental health coordinator.
The president's public safety secretary, General Jorge Armando Felix, has also endorsed the proposal. "Drug dependents are a public health problem. They should be treated as people like those with any other illness, particularly in the area of psychiatry, they need support and treatment."
Through this new lens, Lula will sign a presidential decree to regulate harm reduction programs, making possible a wider network of treatment for drug users and the creation of local centers for safe drug use. Before opening their doors, these centers will need authorization from the Health Ministry and will count with permanent support.
Preferably, the centers will be monitored by universities and dedicated to high risk users, such as those who use crack or inject cocaine.
The decree will create the role of Harm Reduction agent, a health professional who will be responsible for the direct contact with the users. And he, for example, will provide sterilized syringes…
Today, non-governmental organizations, with support from the health department, are already involved in Harm Reduction programs, but within the limits of legal prohibitions, thus there has been no regulation of this kind of work…
The goal for 2005 is the creation of 250 such local drug use centers around the country.
After much controversy and six public hearings in different states, the government will finalize the new policy on November 24th… The emphasis will be on demand and Harm Reduction.
According to the national drug czar, General Paulo Robero Uchoa, the government decided to put its efforts into combat against narco-trafficking, leaving the drug user to medical attention. "A drug is an inert thing. I don't combat penicillin… Now I combat trafficking. Drugs have to be understood to be able to educate and prepare society and the youth to not use drugs carelessly."

Translated from: Folha de São Paulo, 15 de novembro de 2004.

Al Giordano's Reporter's Notebook

About Al Giordano

Personal Website
http://www.narconews.com

Biography
Publisher of The Narco News Bulletin.

View full user profile

Latest Notebook Entries

hiding behind the smoke

Submitted November 16, 2004 - 8:07 am by Simon Binks

Having read Al's piece regarding Brazil's recognition of drug use as a public health problem, I thought I'd mention the exact opposite currently being discussed in the UK. The UK governemnt is expected to publish a white paper (policy document) soon which will recommend banning smoking is public places, such as offices, restaurants and the majority of bars. This is not to stop people smoking but to address the problem of passive or second hand smoke (inhaling other people's smoke)

Just wondered what the Nacrosphere would make of such contrasting approaches, I'm certain of which one seems misguided in my eyes!

Just to get things going, the UK popualtion is circa 46 million of which about 25% smoke, currently passive smoking related deaths are estimated at anything between 700 to 3600 per year (between 0.002% and 0.01% of the non-smoking population).

how many people die in Brazil from Drug related causes?

Blowing Passive Smoke

Submitted November 17, 2004 - 8:25 pm by Andrew Grice (not verified)

I'm skeptical about much of the alarmist sounding statistics we hear about passive smoke. Didn't the tobacco companies use science as propaganda to show how cigarettes weren't cancer causing death sticks after all? And doesn't government funded research still use science as propaganda to argue that cannabis is some kind of highly dangerous drug? Having been "informed" that passive smoke is even more dangerous than the smoke inhaled by the cigarette smokers, I can't help but be skeptical about the whole lump of anti-passive smoke statistics.
There's no doubt it's not a good thing to breathe. And with many people such as asthmatics being particularly sensitive to passive smoke, it makes perfect sense to have cleaner air in most public spaces. But what is so wrong about cigarette smokers also having some space? Designated smoking areas and ventilation can eliminate the problem of passive smoke. Perhaps not all spaces can be adequately ventilated, but why ban smoking in all places that can?
In cities like New York, smoking is banned in all bars on the basis that passive smoke makes for an intolerable work environment. Oddly enough, although coal miners suffer a far more dangerous breathing environment, nobody has banned coal mining. As a resident of another city with cold winters, it would be intolerable to me if smokers were allowed no indoor respite whatsoever. Reasonable compromise is fine, but banning cigarette smokers from all public areas is unacceptable.
It's my opinion that cigarettes are deadly, addictive and dangerous. Much of the exaggerated hype that's said about illegal drugs is actually true about cigarettes. But we're seeing a process that seems to be creeping towards total prohibition of cigarettes, which would be an absolute nightmare for society. Not just for smokers like myself.

bad logic

Submitted November 21, 2004 - 1:02 pm by Charles Faris

andrew, your logic is flawed...the misuse of science in the smoking debate doesn't mean that all smoking science is bad...as a former smoker i can attest that a night spent in a smoky bar, whether working or as a patron, results in more damage to my lungs and so forth than simply smoking a few cigarettes...a roomful of smoke is equivalent to smoking full-time...the only way to get more smoke in your body is to smoke in a room full of smoke. there is no such thing as "adequate" ventillation when it comes to a room full of smokers...being lucky enough to live in a city with a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars i feel free for the first time in years to go out at night without the concern of waking up with a smokers hangover, stinky clothes, and a three-day cough.

once again, we have a beautiful example of how binary/dualistic/either-or/two party thinking results in a solution that pleases one group and displeases another. rodney king asked the question...i propose the answer...yes, we can all get along if we put our heads together and operate in good faith.

there are no easy solutions to the smokers/non-smokers debate. and please don't confuse the question of where you can smoke with the question of whether you can smoke. i personally support the legalization of all drugs, yet i don't want people snorting lines on the subway or shooting up out in the park. perhaps smokers need to organize and, recognizing that their habit is offensive and dangerous, open private smoking clubs or petition for amendments to the legislation to allow for special smoking-only break rooms in office buildings, etc.

Or How About We Just Defy the Smoking Bans?

Submitted November 21, 2004 - 2:26 pm by Al Giordano

Charles writes:

"once again, we have a beautiful example of how binary/dualistic/either-or/two party thinking results in a solution that pleases one group and displeases another."

I quite agree but I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions, Charles.

The law should not be involved in telling a bar or restaurant owner, or any kind of business or home owner, what his or her policy must be regarding whether to allow cigarette smoking or not.

Let the public decide by determining which restaurants and bars it patronizes. Non-smokers can go to non-smoking establishments. Smokers can go to smoker-friendly establishments. The entire problem is the law being involved.

In any case, it doesn't matter to me. I smoke where I want, and the law be damned. If an establishment isn't courteous enough to leave out an ashtray, I consider that an invitation to leave my cigarette butts on the floor, or on a plate, or in a glass... Anywhere that it won't cause a fire.

If the owner then asks me to leave, I will leave. But you'd be surprised how many just look the other way!

The concept that smokers should have to "go outside" and catch pneumonia in the name of "public health" is cruel and bigoted. I do not cooperate with it.

I recently (well, last May) went to Los Angeles, California, a state where smokers have been placed under siege for years now. I lit up in restaurants all over the place. That was really fun because Californians are already so over-socialized to expect that everyone obeys their damn anti-smoker laws that when they saw me lighting up in a restaurant they turned their heads away with frightened looks on their faces. They seemed to think I was a psychopath! (As if I had lit up a joint or something illegal.) I loved inhaling and exhaling the wafting smoke and watching them all run for cover as if I'd pulled out a submachine gun in a schoolyard!

Smoking bans trigger craving, make the tobacco taste better, and bring the act of smoking clearly back into the realm of "speech" and disobedience to arbitrary authority.

Some people may have a "preference" not to be around other people's smoke. Fine! Nobody forces you to go out to someone else's restaurant or business. But to think it is a "right" to be able to tell other people what to do in their own businesses is a very extreme, authoritarian, concept, and deserves disobedience and resistance at every turn, on the battlefield of daily life.

No one asked a waiter to ask you to stop?

Submitted November 22, 2004 - 1:06 pm by Jeff Wegerson

That is what my wife and I do. Then the onus is on the business. They can choose to offend you or offend us. That's the business breaks.

I don't recall whether we still have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants here in Chicago or not. When we did we asked to be far enough away from the smoking section and usually that was fine for us.

I can live with separate sections and separate businesses. I see the balance as going too far with the anti-smoking bias. While the tobacco industry is still over-powerfull, like the general run of coporate economics, the current approach to tobacco use is otherwise close to a reasonable model for other drugs. It is possible to reduce dangerous drug usage without criminalizing it. It is possible to fund measures to address the damages done by it.

I can only surmise that your California visit had you Potemkinized in restaurants full of the, as you say, "over-socialized". I know we would have engaged you in the daily life battlefield.

it looks good on paper...

Submitted November 23, 2004 - 12:56 am by Charles Faris

hey al,

you write "I quite agree but I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusions, Charles.", but i'm not sure you got the gist of my conclusions, which were that "we can all get along if we put our heads together and operate in good faith." everything after that was a "perhaps".

you also write: "Let the public decide by determining which restaurants and bars it patronizes. Non-smokers can go to non-smoking establishments. Smokers can go to smoker-friendly establishments. The entire problem is the law being involved."

as a smoker you wouldn't know that in towns without smoking laws ALL bars are smoking bars. there are no non-smoking establishments to patronize. the same with restaurants before we got smoking sections. it is simply not economically feasible for a business owner to vote against the smokers if the bar next door doesn't. that's why i say that the either/or binary thinking won't solve these types of problems, and that we need to engage in a dialog of good faith.

you can label the attempt to provide some clean air for the people who don't smoke "authoritarian", which obviously it is, but what is the word for the individuals and groups of people who decide to fill the air with smoke regardless of what the people sitting next to them may or may not want? you've probably never had the experience of sitting at a table (or a park bench) enjoying yourself only to have someone come by and light up a cigarette, or worse, a cigar, thereby effectively evicting you from your good time. that may not be "authoritarian", but it's something just as ugly. as george carlin says, "do you mind if i smoke? no! do you mind if i fart?"

smokers have had their way in bars for hundreds of years, and being a minority of the population, and seeing the way that the tide is turning, now is the moments of power to engage in some open honest dialog, let go of the arrogant attitude of "i can do what i want wherever i want, goddammmit", and look for a solution that accomodates everyone before all the blue states (ironic, eh?) become smoke-free zones.

yours in good faith...

Smokers and Drivers

Submitted November 23, 2004 - 3:37 pm by Al Giordano

Charles writes:

you've probably never had the experience of sitting at a table (or a park bench) enjoying yourself only to have someone come by and light up a cigarette, or worse, a cigar, thereby effectively evicting you from your good time. that may not be "authoritarian", but it's something just as ugly.

As a matter of fact, I have that very kind of experience all the time, including on park benches... When a car or truck drives by and "smokes" its exhaust fumes into my face, or makes excessive noise assaulting my ears...

After all, I don't own a car! Why should I, a non-driver, have to put up with all these filthy, dirty, exhaust fume polluters? Huh?

But then I remember: Nobody forces me to sit on THAT park bench. Nobody forces me to leave my house and garden. If I want to be part of society, I have to be tolerant of other people's choices. And, after all, I may not own a car, but I do get into taxis, and onto buses, and I eat and purchase products that would not get to me if not for those damn trucks. And a lot of those drivers are working hard and participating in society too! So, I have to learn to live with them.

We who are smokers are treated like lepers by North American society and increasingly the law. We are forced to go outside as many as 60 or 70 times a day to "catch pneumonia in the name of public health." But we work hard, we contribute to society, just as much as non-smokers. (In fact, because we live, on average, seven years less than non-smokers, we use up seven years less of social security and medical costs because we have fewer "non productive" years. We should get a friggin' rebate! Instead, we subsidize all those selfish non-smokers who want to extend their lives an extra seven years and leech off the rest of us!)

A human being is not a nation-state! I know it is all the rage in North American pop psychology to consider that the "individual" has "boundaries" (borders) and that other people have to get their visa stamped to come near, but that is a very control-freaky sort of way to view being part of the human race, in my opinion.

I would prefer that people didn't wear cologne or perfume, or that if they do they would take the stairs instead of the elevator and not assault my nose with it... But, y'know what? Nobody forces me to take that elevator! I could walk the stairs myself! Or avoid the building altogether!

So, to be a civil part of society, I have to be tolerant of those stinky cologne polluters just as non-smokers have to be tolerant of us smokers and not go asking Big Brother to create laws and rules as to how we will get along or not.

Otherwise, we're all just little warring nation-states patrolling our borders, and the humanity of human life is lost, once again, to the mutant freakazoid post-human species that has been created by that very kind of pop psychology attitude!

No Smoke

Submitted November 23, 2004 - 8:39 pm by Benjamin Melançon

No Al, you shouldn't have to breath car exhaust. No one, in going about their daily lives, should have to breath anything that causes cancer.

Diesel fumes especially should be the smoke attacked as a public health risk, especially in cities where it causes asthma and ruins the quality of life for children.

I'm more concerned about the U.S. government's promotion of cigarrette smoking around the world, making it the most active government by far in promoting dangerous drug use, than I am concerned about local governments banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

That said, huge fines on restaurant owners, to make them enforcers for the government, and a "zero tolerance" policy for smoking in public scare me, even if I like smoke-free bars. I favor point of origin regulation of things that harm people anyway: cigarettes don't have to have nearly as many carcinogens as they do have, and we all can live with a little threat to our health. Though I think it's a little more than a simple annoyance, in a lot of cases it is comparable.

But Al, if you light up in an elevator I'm on, I'm taking your cigarette away!

Compromise on Passive Smoke

Submitted November 23, 2004 - 10:55 pm by Andrew Grice (not verified)

Banning smoking in bars is an anti-drinking measure in disguise. Perhaps it is not intended to drive hordes of smokers out of the bars and many bars out of business, but that's the effect. Smokers are far more likely to put up with a non-smoking restaurant than a non-smoking bar. Let the bars welcome our cancerous clouds and you can keep your restaurants smoke free. A reasonable portion of the non-smokers in bars aren't exactly drinking for their health anyway.

Get off my cloud

Submitted November 23, 2004 - 10:54 pm by Bill Conroy

I smoked for 10 years, quit for a few months, started again, then quit for another 10 years. Recently I started again. No denying I'm conflicted.

So I think I can relate to the smoke in both sides of the tobacco argument. In fact, this debate reminds me of a line one of my kids recently used on me.

"Dad, every time you smoke a cigarette it takes 7 seconds off your life," he said.

"Then that just means you'll have to get to the hospital a little earlier when I'm on my death bed," I replied.

His point was valid, but so was mine.

I can take the smoker nagging from people who genuinely care about me and my health. But it's still nagging. When it comes from other people, particularly those who snipe at me from a self-interested point of view (the second-hand smoke guilt trip), I dig my heels in.

If you smoke in the states, you pay more for insurance, you pay more in taxes, you pay a high cost in terms of social ostracism. Basically, you pay and pay....

But it's not smoking that is the real health and social problem. It's the stress that comes with life in modern society that should be more of concern on the health front, yet we don't penalize employers who force workers to slave away to bolster obscene profit margins; in fact, our society rewards that. On the social front, we penalize smokers, ostensibly due to the harm of second-hand smoke, yet we allow giant manufacturers to trade pollution credits to avoid cleaning up their smokestacks.

So, if someone complains about the second-hand smoke from my cigarette, I complain about the fact that they are mortal, that they will die, and I don't want to be around that kind of negativity. I ask them if they are carrying any known forms of bacteria or viruses that might be airborne. I ask them if they ever exceed the speed limit, cheat on their taxes, or screw their neighbor's wife.

Usually, they don't stick around long enough to answer.

Native Americans have it right on tobacco. In its purist form, it's a spiritual experience.

They also had war pipes and peace pipes. I prefer smoking a peace pipe, much fuller flavor. But whenever I run into one of those reformed smokers who has found his asshole at the end of a butt, I like to break out the war pipe and remind them that we all breathe air, another form of vapor, and the small amount of smoke my tobacco is putting into that vapor is no worst than the crap they put into that same air -- with their lawn mowers, cars, pesticides, human bacteria and barbecue grills, etc.

So, I'll put down my war pipe, if you agree to quit screwing up my air with your arrogance. In the mean time, please respect my allotment of vapor in this lifetime.

And, just for the record, I'll probably quit smoking again, not because of anything anyone else says to me, but rather because I choose to -- unless you can figure out a way to quit for me.

But I'll always be up for smoking a peace pipe with friends. For those who are bothered by that, get off my cloud.

Now I'm off to smoke some tobacco.....

Smoking bans and workers' rights

Submitted November 24, 2004 - 12:52 pm by Joel Wiens

Before I wade into this debate, a few disclosures:

I'm currently being actively socialized in an environment actively hostile to smoking and highly supportive of institutional control of public smoking - i.e. med school.
I've already been socialized to accept an unusual degree of government regulation by being Canadian, and am surrounded by people (especially by being middle class) who feel fine about this.
I'm a smoker and enjoy going to Quebec where I can smoke anywhere I want

Although a lot of the comments seem to be concerned about patron's rights at establishments that allow smoking, I've heard no comment about workers' rights, except that workers are getting screwed enough so how dare we take away their cigarette smoking rights as well. A lot of the debate here in Canada was centered around the effect of a day full of breathing in second hand smoke by bartenders and waiters and waitresses. In particular, the debate centered around the special vulnerability of women to these risks - not a special physiological vulnerability but a social one. For a variety of reasons, the food service industry is a prime employer of female students and under skilled workers. In a competitive labor market, many women, for short or long periods of their lives, are left with few options other than waiting tables, bartending and serving drinks at clubs. These women, in establishments that allow smoking, are forced to inhale an appalling amount of smoke. Sure, one can argue that they have all the freedom in the world to find a job at a place where this isn't the case (and often they can)...but that is totally out of keeping with what labor unions have been fighting for for years! No one should have to be exposed unnecessarily to harmful substances or unsafe conditions in their place of employment. Sure, other industries aren't being compelled to follow this rule by government, but here is an example of a vulnerable population actually being protected by government regulation. How is that not a good thing?

civil society

Submitted November 24, 2004 - 3:07 pm by Charles Faris

well, we're sill working with either/or logic here, either we ban it or we don't. perhaps, i'm thinking, we can look to zapatista logic for a trick to untying this knot, and yet, somewhere in my memory banks i seem to recall that in zapatista country the use of alcohol is banned...so i guess they have neither experience with the "smoking in a bar" debate, not having "bars", nor an aversion to selective either/or "let's just ban it" logic.

again, i am not supporting the banning of tobacco, or of smoking tobacco. i am simply waving a white flag and asking "can we all get along?" because i know that we can. and that it won't be easy.

elsewhere in this debate andrew grice suggests a compromise, banning in restaurants and allowing in bars, pointing out that a "reasonable portion of the non-smokers in bars aren't exactly drinking for their health anyway." any compromise is a start, but this one fails on two counts that i can think of, one being joel wiens' argument in favor of workers rights, and the other being entertainment establishments where a sizable portion of the crowd is attending to listen to music etc.

all in all, i tend to favor the smoking and non-smoking sections argument, allowing for a truly effective method of keeping the smokers air separate from the non-smokers air. again, with enough good faith, conflicts like these can always be resolved. and that is what we are about here on the narcosphere, yes?

more smoke

Submitted November 27, 2004 - 9:55 pm by Gabriel Magee

just a quick response to Al on the comment that "The concept that smokers should have to "go outside" and catch pneumonia in the name of "public health" is cruel and bigoted. I do not cooperate with it." - i don't think you can defend that point of view, this is precisely what the non-smoker is saying to you. instead he has to "catch" cancer in the name of the smokers comfort.
you seem to feel like smoking in public then becomes some kind of civil disobediance. but the non-smoker is left with no such recourse- would you recommend he hold his breath as a form of protest against the de facto public policy of second hand smoke enforced upon him? as rousseau says "liberty consists less in doing one's own will than in not being subject to that of another"

Good News!

Submitted November 16, 2004 - 11:33 am by Baylen Linnekin

Thanks, Al, for breaking this. It's great news. Cheers.

Brazilian Embassy: Lula Will Decriminalize

Submitted November 17, 2004 - 11:22 am by Al Giordano

The Drug Policy Alliance (was that you, Baylen?) called the Brazilian Embassy in the United States seeking confirmation of this Narco News story.

The DPA website announces:

The Brazilian Embassy in Washington, DC confirmed the impending decriminalization and harm-reduction measures earlier today to the Alliance.

(And congrats to DPA for now becoming the second publication, along with Narco News and The Narcosphere, on drug policy to be featured by Google News!)

restaurant worker's rights

Submitted November 24, 2004 - 3:43 pm by Amy Casada-Alaniz

Interesting that the debate comes to this place!

I am a waitress & a smoker. I work in a restaurant that has a smoking section, which happens to be on the opposite end of the building from the non-smoking section. The "smoking section" is actually a lounge, where the bar is. A lot of people show up at the bar to drink, & others show up for dinner. Among the waitresses some of us do not like to work in the lounge because of the smoke. Others dont like to work in the non-smoking dining room for other reasons. Some of us (like me) work both sides.

The deal is, we have a choice. And frankly, (though I would not say that waiting is my career goal in this life) I cannot deny that I make a choice to wait tables. I would never, for example, work in the make-up department of a department store. Even though I like nice make-up as much as the next girl (or boy), I gag just walking past the perfume counter. And the factory I used to work in did a number on my lungs like the smokiest bar Ive ever spent the night over-indulging at. And the customer service job I used to have working in a call center was so irritating to my ears with its white noise & beeping in my poor eardrums & people screaming at me.... The way I look at work choices for many of us is that basically they all suck. If we wanted policy to protect our health & well-being at work, nothing would be good enough short of a ban on work.

So, back to reality, I think the question is of whether we need laws to make the decisions for us about smoking in public. The way I see it, public policy limits not only our choices but also our ability to reach consensus or compromise through discussion. We let the decision be made by our authorities, & then we dont have to talk about it, talking about it does us no good, & eventually we forget how to talk about things with each other to compromise. We also forget that we have a choice to begin with. If a good capitalist sees that a no-smoking bar is desirable in a community, he can open one up! Or a business owner can decide today, right here in the heartland, that he doesnt enjoy smoking & ban it in his establishment, to his choice!

This issue is clearly an emotional one-- look how many people want to talk about it! But I think the reason that discussion of drug policy is so emotional in general is that it speaks to the most intimate realities of everyday life & choices for participating or not in so-called civil society. I support decriminalization of all drugs & freedom from the medical establishment's tyranny over many legal drugs. I dont understand why anyone would consider smoking to be a separate issue.

Even more (!!) on smoking in the workplace

Submitted November 24, 2004 - 5:46 pm by Joel Wiens

I heartily agree with Amy Casada-Alaniz' point about work in general being a drag. The problem I have with smoking in the workplace in particular is that it contributes significantly to a fairly long list of very serious health problems that are very avoidable. I agree that not all workplaces are equal in the exposure that employees are subjected to. Some bosses are very enlightened in the choice they give to their employees. Some rooms have great circulation. Some employees actually do have quite a nice range of options available to them in terms of where they could work instead. This debate is not nearly as relevant to those people. Unfortunately, there does exist a vulnerable population of workers who don't have enlightened bosses and whose choice of other employment is a bit more dire, beyond the work-sucks-in-general dilemma (which is a very real dilemma, I agree once again). Safety in the workplace is an area that I think governments should be interested in being involved with because employers too often do sacrifice it to improve their ability to make a profit. And I would argue that smoking in the workplace is a work safety issue, one that can't be simply discussed in a civilized manner on a situation to situation basis. I think the social, racial and gender divisions in our society are far too intrenched at this point to be able to depend on that for now.

Blowing smoke

Submitted November 24, 2004 - 8:21 pm by Bill Conroy

Right on Amy!

I find the workers' rights argument against smoking to be disingenuous. Most service-sector workers don't have unions because U.S. labor law is stacked against organizing in the workplace. The conservative agenda brought us right-to-work to prevent unions (under the rational that workers should have a choice to join a union); by the same token, they should give workers the right of choice on other workplace matters, such as the issue of smoking. But consistency is not really part of the program, is it?

Better yet, the government should get out of the business of regulating smoking all together, and liberalize union organizing laws so that employees in these local service establishments can decide democratically, as part of an empowered bargaining unit, how they want to deal with such issues.

(And I'm talking about local control in this vision of unions, that is, power must flow from the workers, not down from the top, where corruption tends to take root.)

If such dramatic reform were to occur, I bet smoking wouldn't be the first issue taken up by these truely empowered workers. I suspect wages, benefits and job security would be what really strikes the match.

You can't pretend to speak for the workers on selective issues, such as smoking, and ignore the larger battles faced daily by the working class in this, and every country. Those who do, in my opinion, are simply blowing smoke.

Bill Conroy just kicked my butt

Submitted November 24, 2004 - 9:10 pm by Joel Wiens

Bill Conroy's argument is a powerful one, and one that highlights an obvious and substantial problem. Thinking over my posting earlier and a previous comment by Al about sending smokers out to get pneumonia, I couldn't help think of the approaching winter and the awfully small selection of places to collect and socialize in many a small town in Canada. I concede that it is disengenuous to fixate on smoking in the work place without enabling workers to shape their working world much, much more, on a much smaller regional level. Social discourse makes little sense when the social context for that discourse is as fragmented and unequal as it is now, here as in the US and elsewhere. When a Public Health Officer (a position held by a doctor in most cities in Canada) lobby's government and enforces things like smoking bans (which he/she has the power to do here) he/she is acting from a context of middle class power. The truth is that there are communities within communities in every city and town (the level at which these decisions take place here) who ought to be able to make their own decisions about such things.

Joel, don't concede so quickly

Submitted November 25, 2004 - 6:51 am by Benjamin Melançon

I admit I'm a tad concerned this has become the most active discussion on the Narcosphere (at least we acknowledge that the places one can smoke, or not breath smoke, is not the biggest freedom/justice issue on our radar). But I love the discussion and the radical turn it has taken-- going to the root.

As stated above, the problem is not people smoking around other people, and the solution is not making businesses stop smokers. The problem is an economy and society that provides far too few options for people in how they earn a living and how they get together. The solution is a society of equal power where any small group can stake out their own space, workers can control their working conditions, and so smoking or non-smoking spaces can actually be founded by groups of patrons or employees as they see fit.

In defense of Joel Wiens' original posts, though, this in itself is not a good argument against prohibiting smoking in workplaces. If we had a fair economy, where everyone had some wealth, we wouldn't need a minimum wage law. But we don't have a fair economy, and does anyone think we should abolish minimum wage, given the way things are now, simply because fair wealth distribution, the right to organize on the job, and non-market forms of interacting would be better solutions if we get them?

True smoking and non-smoking sections wherever possible, with good ventilation and a hazy area in the middle for those (in the minority?) who don't care about breathing others' smoke, seems like as good a solution as we've got. Or maybe, to go back to the original topic here -- Lula's Drug Decriminalization Decree -- we could set up 250 safe drug use centers, where people could smoke tobacco in warmth, reducing the harm to themselves and others. I thought I was kidding here, but you tell me.

Since we've been disclosing our smoking habits, I'll say here I don't use any drugs that involve burning, needles, pills, or other non-food entry. I do over-eat, including sugar and chocolate, I sometimes drink alcohol, and I have chewed coca). And I really don't like cigarette smoke, though I'm getting better. A roommate at college asked if he could "smoke" in the room. "I'm sorry," I said. "That's one thing I absolutely cannot-- wait, do you mean marijuana? Oh that's fine."

Two rights don't make a wrong

Submitted November 25, 2004 - 4:37 pm by Bill Conroy

Ben advances the following:

The solution is a society of equal power where any small group can stake out their own space, workers can control their working conditions, and so smoking or non-smoking spaces can actually be founded by groups of patrons or employees as they see fit.
In defense of Joel Wiens' original posts, though, this in itself is not a good argument against prohibiting smoking in workplaces. If we had a fair economy, where everyone had some wealth, we wouldn't need a minimum wage law. But we don't have a fair economy, and does anyone think we should abolish minimum wage, given the way things are now, simply because fair wealth distribution, the right to organize on the job, and non-market forms of interacting would be better solutions if we get them?

Ben, your logic is flawed.

You argue, essentially, that because there is a minimum wage law, there should also be laws banning smoking in the workplace. Your reasoning is that we don't live in a perfect world, so we can't wait around until it is perfect before banning smoking in the workplace, again on the premise that a smoking ban is good for the workers.

But the problem is that the efforts to ban smoking are not being brought forth by a workers' movement, but rather by other forces in society who hide behind the cover of "workers' rights," and other conceits.

If it were left to market forces, we would have no minimum wage requirements. In fact, it may be a law that gets rolled back over the next several years as conservative interests are very opposed to minimum wages, arguing they distort the marketplace. And undoubtedly, as part of the argument for ravaging minimum wage, "leaders" will step forward to argue that it is a good thing for the workers.

The only reason we have a minimum wage law is because the labor movement did organize around that issue and forced the system to incorporate that workers' right into the law. But you can't equate a labor success in advancing rights with a movement to roll back rights -- such as the worker's right to make other decisions about their workplace.

It's the similar flawed logic being advanced by the right with respect to gay marriage. You can't contend that the rights of one group of people, gays, must be rolled back to accommodate the beliefs of another group -- fundamentalist Christians. In a truly local model, both groups can be accommodated. God nuts can set up their own church communities where they can exclude gays if they so desire, but by the same token, gays should be able to set up their own communities where gay marriage is accepted and God nuts who hate gays are excluded.

But in no case should a democratic government, a representative, in theory, of all the people, take away the rights of either group to make those decisions for their local communities. And in the public spaces, which everyone shares, we should all be tolerant of those democratic rights -- or we can be content with bunkering down in our own exclusionary worlds with other exclusionary people.

But as you note, we do not live in a perfect society, so we still have wars, Abu Ghraibs and Enrons. Those seem to slide by, written off as the way things are in an imperfect world, but smoking is somehow the scapegoat we focus on to reform civilization.

That is bogus and a distortion of civil society. There is nothing inconsistent with maintaining the minimum wage -- even advancing it to include minimum benefits -- and allowing workers to set their own parameters on smoking within the workplace, and we don't have to wait for utopia to secure those rights.

Conundrum in my own mind

Submitted November 25, 2004 - 7:01 pm by Bill Conroy

I need to add one more thing that exposes the shortcomings in my own logic. My argument concerning self determination for local communities while maintaining tolerance in public spaces creates a conundrum that I admit I'm still working to see my way through.

By extension of my reasoning, on the surface, one could contend that it is OK for one group to discriminate against another group, or individual, within their communities based on local control because the country club is not a public space. For example, a private country club could decide to exclude African Americans.

I do not feel that is right, nor do I think it is good for society.

The conundrum, as I see it, is defining the parameters of "public place" within the context of local control. The concept of public space is not limited to geography, such as a park, it seems to me. Arguably, systems such as the "marketplace" are public spaces as well, and laws and rules that undermine individual or community rights within that sphere should therefore be deemed out of bounds.

In the country club example, exclusion could lead to disadvantage for the excluded group in terms of opportunities in the marketplace as it now exists in a capitalist society, because the good 'ol boy system would assure that only country club members get job promotions, contracts, etc.

So, my logic starts to break down in the real world, absent a clear definition of public space vs. local community. On that front, I'm still working it out, and I suspect non-smokers and smokers alike have to find a compromise that leads to agreement on a definition of public space.

Al's analogy of the individual as nation-state touches on the same problem, I think. We are not nation-states, yet we must function in a world defined by nation-states.

Maybe public space is not a static thing, but rather organic and evolving, similar to a community. Maybe it's the space where communities touch each other, to create something bigger -- much like the parts of the human body each have different functions but must act together to sustain life.

I admit, I don't have the details in that devil defined.

Now, I'll shut up for a while, so I can learn something from this community.

my logic's fine, but I've got no solution either

Submitted November 25, 2004 - 11:27 pm by Benjamin Melançon

Bill Conroy (who is, incidentally, smarter than me in every way) wrote that I "argue, essentially, that because there is a minimum wage law, there should also be laws banning smoking in the workplace." Actually, I used the minimum wage analogy to disprove the assertion that smoking bans were bad simply because a society of true choice, where small groups of people could easily control the conditions of their work and play, would make bans unnecessary. I stand by that logic. I didn't say smoking bans were good, because I'm not sure they are and the analogy doesn't work that way. I actually proposed places have true smoking and non-smoking sections, with a demilitarized zone, like Amy Casada-Alaniz's current workplace.

I am deeply suspicious of the motives behind smoking bans, mostly because I don't understand them, and I know damn well they aren't coming from the workers. Still, bad motives don't prove bad policy. Upton Sinclair wrote "The Jungle" to call attention to and change the horrible working conditions in the meatpacking industry and the quality of life in working class America in general. The laws regulating meat for the eater's safety, therefore, came from quite the wrong motives from this perspective, but may nonetheless have improved working conditions slightly. I'm still not showing the moral courage of actually defending smoking bans, but just pointing out that they have to be attacked in themselves more than the motives behind them (though I'd like people's theories on what the motives are).

The fact that workers have not been the force behind smoking bans doesn't mean much about their stance either, given that we in the retail and service sectors tend to be so disorganized. Even though some of us in this discussion work in bars or have friends who do, we don't know the general opinion on smoking bans! (In Amherst and Framingham Massachusetts my impression is that more favor bans than not; in Australia the Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Union supports bans, citing health risks to its workers.)

Cigarette smoking simply isn't as simple as other drug issues-- using any other drug, in itself, doesn't hurt anyone else but smoking in public, to some small extent, does-- at least people who work in all-smoking workplaces like bars. The stress of life in a work-like-crazy-to-stay-in-place so "the economy" grows 2 percent while we use up our own health and the world's natural resources and environmental strength-- that is of course a more important issue, by itself and as a cause of unhealthy drug use. (Just to point out another hypocrisy of the state's crackdown on public smoking is its promotion of state lottery gambling, a far surer way to ruin lives.)

Mostly we as organizers and activists cannot let smoking divide us physically (arguing like this is cool). At the J-school in Bolivia it did not. It's fine with me to go by smokers' rule when we all get together. But what's the smoking policy when we're not dependent on government-regulated restaurants or bars but on our own community-made and enjoyed meals?

solutions

Submitted November 26, 2004 - 2:48 pm by Amy Casada-Alaniz

Some of us just live for debate...! But does being argumentive mean that I am by nature uncooperative, a nay-sayer, a discontent with nothing useful to say... just more questions & no solutions (which clearly we crave)? I would like to say something in defense of not having a solution....

Instituting a law, later on, we have no room for discussion or debate. The law is the law. In this country the ideal is to "democratically" decide on a law that suits all of us, probably reaching some compromise. If later on enough of us decide that we made a mistake, we have ways to try & re-write the law or revoke the law or we just break the law long enough till it loses importance socially & the law itself becomes mere formality; but all of this takes time.

People dont always feel the same way about something. From one year to the next we experience life, & sometimes we even change our minds. From one day to the next what we eat and drink, the weather, maybe the moon phases make us feel strong & brave one day & whimpering & pathetic another. Our training & re-training & un-training cause us changes all the time.

If we just wouldnt institute a LAW for everything we have a debate about, we'd leave the space open for a daily (or more or less often) fresh look at things. (There are days when I dont smoke at all, for example, & other days I chain smoke all day long.)

The thing about civil society (& participatory democracy), to me, is that some days I dont want to participate (engage).... I would say that when we institute truths & laws & rules, we limit ourselves in ways that our bodies or unconscious minds oftentimes fight.

The implications of this un-solution may be terrifying as anti-civilization... but I would argue that civilization itself is a construct, & looking at it that way, we see that collectively we construct the thing ourselves (usually by default, just letting things happen). The beauty of this un-solution is that we remain open to the day & our willingness to participate or not at any time.

Besides, we do ("organically" is the word many use) do this anyway.

The guys we call the "they" to whom we assign so much responsibility for our collective situation may just be the ones who do think & act outside of our constructed civilizations.... Maybe what we (that would be you & me) could do is to stay on our toes & address issues as they come up. On top of that, if we recognise that we ALREADY do participate through action or inaction, speaking up or keeping quiet... we take the power into our hands that was really there all the time.

Now, dont get me wrong, I know that some people (the "they"?) have set the shit up so that I am having a helluva time just making ends meet (let alone finding time to think about this & engage in our little debate). At the same time, I cannot deny my own power to affect reality at any given moment. Kreerist, from my desk here Im laying my cards on the table... and I do so when Im at the gas station, dropping my kids off at school, slinging ribs at the restaurant.... This is bottom-up grass roots whatever you wanna call it for real. Every single day, everywhere one goes, interacting with others or not.

Engage with me if you wish to feel this out further (& help me to). And if you would drink a toast to my health, I will return the favor promptly.

More smoke

Submitted November 28, 2004 - 11:45 pm by Andrew Grice (not verified)

A good friend of mine often tells me, "Grice, you know what the problem is with this country? Anytime anyone doesn't like anything, their immediate response is to say there ought to be a law against it." That wouldn't be my catch-all to describe the problems of the post-industrial north, but there's some truth in it. The drug laws are only the most extreme example of the negative consequences this mindset can bring about.
But as much as I'd like to move on to a future based entirely around consensus and community without a need for a state and apparatus to enforce its laws, I'm not prepared to give up the good laws in the meantime. Some of us may even owe our lives to such things as health, safety and environmental laws, which even when not well followed or enforced have often served to eliminate some of the worst abuses. So the question becomes where to draw the line. And it isn't an easy one.
One thing that helps me here is that a smoke filled bar is obvious and more or less avoidable. Mercury poisoning from industrial emissions is neither. An unsafe machine in a factory may or may not be obvious, but making it safer shouldn't have to fundamentally affect what that factory produces. But banning smoking does fundamentally affect the quality of the bar experience for many patrons. Anti-smokers have every right to complain, but I don't think they have the right to impose their will on all bar owners and patrons. Loud music can damage a person's hearing, but should those concerned be able to force every band and DJ to keep the music turned down so they too can come out to enjoy it?

Bill's body

Submitted November 26, 2004 - 3:00 pm by Amy Casada-Alaniz

Hey Bill that last rant from me was speaking to you. Its the hardest thing in the world to put words to.... It is the ineffable!

one can of worms, opened

Submitted November 29, 2004 - 9:54 am by Simon Binks

Couple of things I'd like to pick up on,

Al, the car argument is one I've used many times, it stands up well. In fact it goes to the heart of the matter, as Andrew leans towards, the smoking statistics/science are misleading, and deliberately so. Recent studies, in the UK, have highlighted poor, urban areas as having the highest numbers of smoking related illness/deaths. These are the very same areas that have the highest levels of respiratory illness amongst under 16’s. They all have something else in common; they suffer from the highest levels of air pollution, and finally their last common flaw, their all near main roads and significant junctions. The link between respiratory problems amongst under 16’s and roads are documented and accepted without much question. Yet same places, similar problems, totally different cause, just because it’s smoking. To pinch a rhyme from a Welsh rap group (don’t ask) Passive Smoking doesn’t kill, Cars Do!

Ok so that’s pushing it, smoking kills, and it’s a nasty habit. I just kicked it by the way. As Andrew points out, the rubbish sounded off about the illegal substances is more true of cigarettes, and alcohol. As a how ex-smoker but still toker of joints, I can say with some certainty, cannabis is not in itself particularly addictive, it’s the tobacco its rolled with that gets you.

However it’s not the statistics, or the dangers that are the core of this issue, it is liberty. The reason I brought up the UK smoking issue is the difference between going all out for a ban, anywhere that serves food will be no-smoking, and the ‘harm reduction’ strategy of Brazil as reported by Al. The Brazilian approach is the liberal approach, as taken by the Dutch, free choice with the necessary help always available. Where as the British approach is the authoritarian approach, as championed by the US, prohibition. Time and again prohibition has failed; time and again choice has succeeded, so why is it that prohibition is still considered? I believe that the difference is media, correct me if I’m wrong. The UK media seek to sensationalise everything, thus passive smoking isn’t a problem, it’s an epidemic, drugs aren’t a problem their the root of all evil, etc etc. Where as the Brazilian media doesn’t need to over do everything to sell its story the way the UK media has to. This all stems from the desire to maximise profit.

Just a few other quick points, I’ve worked as a barman and waiter (that job kept me alive and just about sane for three years), and still think banning smoking in bars is wrong.

The whole debate really is pointless unless those who want to ban smoking will at the same time, ban factories, ban power stations, ban-cars, buses, lorries, vans, trains and planes, otherwise they’re out on a very vindictive looking limb.

Look at it this way, ok at least try to look at it this way. Yes, if someone sparks a ciggy in your company, they are forcing you to inhale their smoke, it may increase your chances of getting cancer, but the passive fumes from one cigarette aren’t going to kill you, masses of pollution will.

To pinch Benjamin’s analogy, by all means take Al’s cigarette away so long as you’re doing so to stop the sprinkler system from going off, the fuel that supplied the power for the lift has already been burnt and the fumes from that have done you more damage than Al’s cancer stick will.
To go back to that Welsh Rap group, a little revision of the rhyme, Passive Smoking Doesn’t Kill , Consumerism Will.

Language

Reporter's Notebook: Al Giordano