As a UK citizen my attention has been captured recently by the BBC news reports of a woman thrown onto the railway tracks for asking two men to stop smoking in the station. To put some context on this domestic light transit in the UK runs on electricity passed through a third rail on the track at 720 volts. This was a very terrible thing indeed and could have been the headlining news article for a lot longer than one day. This is the peak in a series of similar escalating events where shopkeepers or bouncers have been assaulted for enforcing the UK’s smoking ban and new tighter distribution laws.

Now while neither I nor any sane person could possibly condone this behavior it made me wonder, if I was a smoker, whether I would be feeling frustrated, ignored and discounted myself. Laws passed last year banning smoking in public places have had an enormous cultural impact on the pub scene which is an intrinsic part of British culture and social life. Bills are being proposed in parliament to enforce adult movie ratings on movies which feature smoking. Some are asking for reclassification of tobacco as a hard drug. Many of the current policies are based on sound scientific projections and are showing positive results. However do we run the risk of alienating a large chunk of the population by changing our attitudes so quickly and rushing ever more stringent legislation through parliament?

As an advocate of tobacco cessation I strongly believe that the best foundations for creating long lasting behavior change is to help smokers make the choice for themselves. As a quit coach I strive to empower participants to understand their addiction in their own terms. But I now feel an added duty as a tobacco cessation specialist to make sure that we listen to the people who call in every day for our help and support and let them know that we are not the tobacco police and we do care. These are adults and sometimes children with a powerful addiction which is slowly killing them, now on top of that they feel like society is turning its back on them. This is strong stuff to be dealing with.

So far we have taken great steps forward to protect the rights of non-smokers whilst removing many of the incentives for smokers to maintain the habit. But I also hope that while some of these more draconian bills are discussed in parliament that we always keep a sense of perspective. So why am I discussing this from an English perspective when I work for a Seattle based company? Doubtless legislative policies between the two cannot be accurately compared considering the different social and historical implications. But I would risk arguing that perhaps the US has been less intrusive on the individual’s right to smoke (or not) choosing instead to simply limit the effect it can have on the general public.

I also personally find it satisfying that so many states in America openly direct funds toward setting up participant focused smoking cessation programs. If we are going to put pressure on people to change their behaviors at least we can give them some tools. Let’s remember that if we move too quickly, or shift the balance too far we may create resistance where there was once persistence. Shouldn’t any health policy advocate choice over legislation just as surely as a nanny state can only produce a nation of children?