The Minister for Health, Micheál Martin, was probably simply dipping his investigative toes into the waters of public opinion when he mused aloud about the possibility of banning smoking in pubs. This is what politicians do, declares Kevin Myers. Suspecting that there might be electoral gains in this issue or that, they lower the old pedal digit into the briny to test its warmth, and to see if there are any fish with sharp teeth lurking down there.
It does sometimes happen that great white sharks await the imprudent; I can't remember the name of the politician who introduced the rod-angling licence without testing the waters of opinion first, but he plunged right in, and promptly got his toes bitten off just above the jugular. So Micheál Martin is right to make enquiries about opinions; he is a cautious but ambitious fellow, and a strong contender to be a future leader of Fianna Fáil.
Body politic
That being the case, can I ask one thing of him? Not to play fast and loose with bogus "facts" to sustain the argument which he quite clearly hopes to open up within that curious cadaver, the body politic. To justify any possible action he may (or may not) take to enforce a no-smoking rule in Irish pubs, he said this: "Passive smoking may contribute to as many as 870 deaths per year."
In the history of civilisation, no issue has attracted such factual bilge, such sanctimonious statistical prattle, such prating nonsense, as "passive smoking". Since it is impossible to replicate for laboratory animals the wildly varying circumstances in which this thing called passive smoking actually occurs, it is impossible to make any scientifically precise prognostications about it.
But what you can do is guess; and if you mix that guess with an apparent fact, but then protect that apparent fact with a conditional verb (making it not a fact at all, but sounding like one), you appear to be knowledgeable, but without being subject to rebuttal.
So, Minister, here goes: What does "may contribute to 870 deaths a year" mean? Word by word, what does it mean? What does "may" mean? Does it mean (a) probably does have an effect; or (b) possibly does have an effect; or (c) possibly not have an effect; or (c) probably has no effect, but just to be on the safe side, we'll accept the remote possibility that it does have an effect?
Which one does it mean, Minister, my dear? Because in the conditional paradise of mayland where you have placed this assertion, you have allowed almost every possibility to co-exist within your sentence, excluding the two bald assertions which we want to hear most of all: either that passive smoking definitely kills, or that it does not. You say neither. But in mayland, you seem to be saying the latter, even with a whiff of science to back up that baseless assertion.
Playing safe
But you don't even confine your defences simply to mayland. You could simply have said passive smoking "may kill", but you didn't. You said instead, "may contribute to. . ."
Dear me. This is playing safe indeed. What in the name of conjugal union does this "contribute" mean? Do you know what else contributes to death? Life, Minister. No life, no death. Something else too. Clean air contributes to death. No clean air, no life, no death. Almost everything we do contributes to our death.
And many more hazardous things, such as drinking tea, and driving motor cars, and flying in aeroplanes, and consuming alcohol, and not getting enough exercise, or getting too much, and getting worried, or not getting worried. In other words, Minister, the word "contribute" serves no function in your sentence other than to raise another barrier against any accusation that you have made an unscientific claim.
But what do we come to next, but another such barrier, with the words, "as many as"? You could have said "as few as", or you could have simply stated the number which followed; but that would again have opened you up to scientific refutation. Instead, you put yourself on the side of the angels by appearing to want to save all those lives per year. How many lives? Oh, as many as 870.
And Minister, if you please: what was the scientific basis for a claim of 870 lives being lost a year, as opposed to 650 lives a year, or 2,000, or 100, or even 871? Where does it come from, this magic number? Moreover, what defines passive smoking? Ten thousand people inhaling the fumes from a single smoker in an airport? One non-smoker sharing a telephone cubicle with 40 smokers?
Matter of consent
Most workplaces outlaw smoking now, and rightly. Personally, I loathe cigarette smoke, and if I knew of a pub which had an absolute no-smoking rule, that would be the pub for me. But such a policy would be the choice of the publican, and of those who chose to give him or her their business. It is a matter of consent, not a matter for Government or politicians, though it might be hard enough for that intrusive breed to believe anything is not a matter for them.
Minister, it comes down to this. It is none of your business whether people smoke, passively or otherwise, in a pub. No one makes us go into a pub, and no one makes us stay. All I ask is for the Government to ensure that no-smoking rules by publicans are legally binding.
After that, Minister, just stand back and let us live our lives, if you can bear to.