Anti Smoking Campaign, Jakarta
Feb 11th, 2010, in Opinion, by Ross
Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo and the Health Dept to deny smokers and their families health care.
Witch-Hunt Gathers Strength
The latest edict from our Jakarta leaders and betters is just another side-swipe at the poor. City governor Fauzi Bowo wants smokers to be denied health benefits. Grizzled Fuzzy:
…low-income families spend 22% of their income on cigarettes. These people enjoy free health care,while still smoking, which worsens their health.
His female flunky, the head of the Jakarta Health Agency Dien Emawati, stressed that not only would the wicked smokers be persecuted but
all the family members living in the same house…becuase they share the responsibility of maintaining a healthy environment.
However, these bureaucrats have not yet decided on a method to identify smokers.
Well, that’s something. What’s it going to be, Fuzzy? Check their tongues for furry skin texture? Their breath for that ash-tray fragrance? Make them cough a few times. Or have a kind of kretek/sharia police prowling round the kampungs, grabbing guys off their door-steps and torturing them till they own up to how many packs a day?
The thing is, if you are poor and don’t have much money to go out and have a good time, a category to which most kampung dwellers belong, then you’re likely to smoke to pass the time agreeably. A cup of kopi Jawa over a fag (sorry, Yanks, that’s a cigarette, not a poofter) is a pleasant way to hang out with your mates.
So inevitably the kill-joys, busily stamping on dissent in the blasphemy debate, and denouncing hair-straightening salons, have now turned their guns on a pastime that is not illegal and brings in vast revenue – uh-oh; revenue.
Money talks, here as much or more than elsewhere, so maybe the smokers’ health ban will be as effective as the smoking ban in Blok M Terminal…not.
79 Comments on “Anti Smoking Campaign, Jakarta”
-
Ross says:
Yes, bs, you have missed the point. Many things are illegal. The whole debate is about whether thet should or shouldn’t be. Governments especially here have better things to do than interfere with people who wish to go out to a bar or into an open-air terminal and have a smoke. Or be persecuted if they even smoke at home..
-
Oigal says:
As my kids would say: ‘You wouldn’t know a right if it was having sex with your face.
Your obsession with how someone should run their private business blinds you to the fact no one asked you in the first place. It really is not a debate point to simply demonise the other. That approach just shows a lack of intellectual rigor or a very weak case. Is the concept of Public and Private enterprise too difficult to grasp? I am well aware it is a fading concept in many nations as more and more of your ilk try and invoke some bizarre new age concept of socialism despite its historical failure as a system of government.
It is highly amusing reading the ongoing nonsense you write trying to justify the imposition of YOUR will into MY business. Yet never once do you address the issues of over regulation in private business which is core to the discussion.
Let’s make it simple for you then (try and address the question if you can). What is the difference between your approach and view and the FPI demanding I cease serving alcohol in my pub? Both substances are legal and heavily taxed, both are subject quite correctly to very heavy restrictions on use in PUBLIC places and dang some would even say alcohol has far worse consequences on health than tobacco.
That safe working environment also includes giving staff the necessary legal authority to deal with a recalcitrant patron without resorting to heavy handed measures that put staff and the public in further danger.
Once again, complete and utter rubbish as you grasp vainly for legislation that would seem to back your obession. If you know anything about the industry you would know that for years the vast majority of establishments had smoking and non-smoking areas which were easily enforced with you and without the heavy hand of legislation. Traditionally these areas were the dining room and public bar, compliance was never an issue. Up until very recently, mine host had a legal obligation to refuse service to a “over indulging” patron with the legal onus on the owner not the patron but apparently according to you, mine host could do this but not control a smoker?
Seriously, if you could not direct a patron to a non smoking area, then you didn’t deserve to be in the trade. As for a legal mine field, funny it never happened in our experience, perhaps you need to work on your people skills a bit.
However, I do get laugh from
Without resorting to heavy handed measures that put staff and the public in further danger.
The mental picture of you and brown-shirts tackling a smoker as soon as he lights up as he pleads “you could’ve just asked” is a hoot. Seriously, the hospitality industry is not recommended for someone like you unless you wish to run one of those clubs where patrons get beaten to a pulp every night over some minor indiscretion.
Your obsession with how I should run my private business blinds you to the fact no one asked you in the first place. By the way, the personal attacks do tend give away your obessions, but here’s a tip never reference your own family in personal attack unless you expect to see it returned in full with interest.
BM, Your issue on Work Place Health is very valid and unlike BK who is riding on the coat tails of legislation to feed his own obsession is worthy of serious comment.
Indeed all steps should be taken to make the workplace as safe as possible. In this case, perhaps by the addition of additional extraction fans, open air bar or perhaps restricting serving such areas to smoking employees only (although other busy body regulation would currently prevent that). Perhaps additional insurance and if it becomes economically unviable then one would make it a non-smoking venue but that should remain the owners choice not the choice of the rebel without a cause -
BrotherMouzone says:
@Ross
Oh, Brother! Staff who sign up for a job in a smoking-tolerant pub know what they’re getting into, Nobody forces them to take the job, and nobody forces them to stay if they weary of it.
Erm… beg to differ. Poverty is often forcing them to take the job and poverty could be forcing them to stay even though the job could be killing them. Doesn’t anyone else see that as kind of disgusting?
You seem to be saying that they should just put up or shut up. It’s inconvenient for you to go outside to smoke so they should just damn well suck up your second hand fumes or find somewhere else to work.
Nice.
-
@ Oigal
Indeed all steps should be taken to make the workplace as safe as possible. In this case, perhaps by the addition of additional extraction fans, open air bar or perhaps restricting serving such areas to smoking employees only (although other busy body regulation would currently prevent that).
I don’t know enough about the science but if there are fans and other solutions that could conceivably reduce second-hand smoke inhalation indoors to 0 or near 0 then I’d be all for them. The insurance aspect seems unworkable (you’re fairly unlikely to be saved from Lung Cancer due to better insurance).
The concept of only allowing smoking employees work in smoking areas is an interesting one, but it is still (again, I don’t know exactly by how much) increasing the employee’s likelihood of getting cancer by having them work in a smoky environment – even if they are 20-a-day smokers themselves. Open-air areas are the only workable solution in my book.
-
BM, You are probably quite right and as times change it would or is becoming uneconomical to continue run a “smoking” venue as “staff” concerns are always going to be an issue going forward. However that was always my point, that is the owner of the establishment right to decide how to run his business and if it is worthwhile not some nanny state legisation.
Let me put it another way, If I ran a small bar with half dozen or so customers who enjoy a smoke (I don’t by the way) and everyone is happy with that and the those who aren’t drink someplace else. One day, BK and his brown shirts, who have never spent a cent in the place turn up and demand I throw the smokers out because they have decided that they want to drink this one time in my bar. You tell me who I should grab by the collar and toss out
on the pavement.
Poverty is often forcing them to take the job and poverty could be forcing them to stay even though the job could be killing them.
That is an over reaction, In fairness we all know we have been talking primarily around developed countries regulations and you are not forced to take any job in Britian or Australia nor would you starve if you did refuse a job.
As for countries like Indonesia, you have children needlessly dying of hunger, disease and abuse every day. For anyone to be ranting on about smoking regulations in this place when the country is faced with far greater issues is the height of self absorbed, new age, disconnected arrogance.
-
@Oigal
That is an over reaction, In fairness we all know we have been talking primarily around developed countries regulations and you are not forced to take any job in Britian or Australia nor would you starve if you did refuse a job.
You say that in the developed world people don’t starve because of not taking a job. You’re quite right. But a bar job is often the difference between poverty and self-sufficiency.
Your example above of militant non-smokers ruining the simple pleasure of a ciggy in a smoking bar is well and good – but it is impossible to divorce the bar from the bar staff who are, inevitably, forced to risk their health.
I don’t believe that I have the right to dictate whether other people should be allowed to smoke in a cafe. As a customer, I can (and occasionally do) vote with my feet if I find a place too smoky. A bartender living below the poverty line, in London or Jakarta, does not necessarily have that option.
-
deta says:
As for countries like Indonesia, you have children needlessly dying of hunger, disease and abuse every day.
Don’t you see that smoking fathers can lead to these problems in their families?
Never underestimate the externalities associated with smoking…. -
Absolutely Deta I do. However I think ranting and raving at a smoker (besides doing little good) does nothing but divert attention away from the far more criticaldysfuntional areas that need attention.
What are we planning to do with the thousands that rely on the tobacco industry for living in Indonesia? There is no “dole” here. What are we going to do with the massive under-investment in education (education which is proven to reduce the incidence of people actually taking up smoking).
What are we planning to do to provide drinking water to those tens of millions that need it?
Seems to me, that people ranting a someone smoking in a pub or club perhaps should take a deep breath (pun intended)look out the window at some of the real problems that just perhaps should be higher priority.
BM, I accept your point about the bartender in Jakarta as valid, in London not by a long shot. Further I accept that smoking is a “dying” industry however in Indonesia’s case well down this list of urgent attention needed.
Interestingly your point of bar staff health is much harder to counter and more reasoned than the rabid, spitting rantings of the anti-smoker who believes it is his right to dictate to someone else what he can or cannot do in his own establishment. Primarly as it involves choice, personally I don’t give a stuff about the whinger anti this anti that guy, don’t like it then leave seems to solve the issue. However if someone did not have that choice then situation must be viewed in a new light.
So if I ran my own little bar and accepted the problems of second hand smoke, you have no issue opening a cigar bar in your town :-). How about if I paid extra for increased risk (seems common practice for risky occupations?).
-
So if I ran my own little bar and accepted the problems of second hand smoke, you have no issue opening a cigar bar in your town .
Absolutely, you would be the owner and would not be pressured or obliged in any way to be in the bar apart from the fact that you wanted to run it for yourself.
Still not too sure about the morality of you having any staff exposed to the ciggy smoke… It’s kind of a (smoky) grey area, I guess. I still think the indoor non/outdoor smoking area we see in the UK is the best workable solution.
-
But alas, the (if it’s) Brown (flush it) regime is mooting an even more draconian law, to stamp out freedom of choice in the open air, much like the daft militarist governor of Jakarta decreed for Thamrin and Sudirman.
-
reza farasdak says:
its a big dillema,
ciggarettes give much money to goverment and make many people have their jobs.. -
mugiyono says:
it is better if this action will be held along with campaign not to grow tobacco. farmers have to change tobacco with other food plants, such as corn, soy been and wheat. since Indonesia still imports them from abroad.
-
Nando Tampubolon says:
I’m a smoker, an addict one maybe. Though, I’m in 99% with Fauzi’s opinion. …low-income families spend 22% of their income on cigarettes. These people enjoy free health care,while still smoking, which worsens their health.
I just dont think its reasonable if poeple who make their own way to death yet asking for free health care facilities to it. Why dont they save their burned-money to get better healt facilities ?
-
arif rahman says:
i think we in one conclusion, that smokers have worst helaty than others
-
David says:
If all the hopelessly addicted nicotine addicts want to commit slow suicide by smoking their stinking, smelly cigarettes, then fine. And let them get all the fun pulmonary diseases whilst they’re at it, such as lung cancer, emphysema, throat cancer etc, no problem. I couldn’t give a rats rear end. Just as long as they don’t do it in my vicinity when I’m out and about in the ‘Big Durian’ ( Jakarta )
-
Tim says:
There’s a similar debate in the UK about the obese putting a huge strain (in both meanings of the term) on the national health service. Ultimately I think that everyone is responsible for their own health to a certain extent and that it is unjust having those people who are destroying themselves with either excessive eating or smoking being paid for by their carrot chewing counterparts in terms of the health service.
-
As an Aussie expat living on and off in Jakarta for the last four years ( and a former smoker- I quit in late 1980 ) I can see both sides of the argument. But I now enjoy such good health at 62 years ‘young’, the thought of smoking and it’s terrible related diseases -lung/throat cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, chronic coughing, stinky breath, etc do nothing for me. However, I don’t mind if people smoke, as long as they don’t blow their smelly smoke in my direction. And ESPECIALLY when I’m eating. That is SO rude and ignorant!
Obviously Jakarta is a smoker’s paradise- dirt cheap smokes, smoking still allowed in a lot of restaurants public places etc. Cigarette ads on TV. So in summing up, if people here ( or anywhere, for that matter ) want to commit slow suicide with this vile and health destroying habit, then fine. But I don’t think that the respective governments/health authorities should have to pick up the tab when they get sick.
-
Arie Brand says:
i stopped smoking in exactly the same year, 1980, and yet my doctor still blames my recent but now chronic bronchitis on that activity of more than thirty years ago. I am more inclined to blame the open coal trains that pass by this place in an endless procession in the first step of the journey to the hungry generators of China. So we are contemplating leaving this otherwise fair valley.
Comment on “Anti Smoking Campaign, Jakarta”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2023
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Right you are, bs.
Many laws are restrictive, not prohibitive. The idea of a drinking age is one example. Governments already tell bar owners they can’t allow children to drink.
Or how about having sex? Not illegal anywhere, but can you do it in a public house? Maybe in a few places, but doubt it’s legal even then.