Walter Lippman in his seminal book, Public Opinion points out the manufacture of consent and its significance to the practice of democracy, because it allows control over public opinion regarding the world and over the public's interests in that world. In a religious country like Indonesia, religious authorities still hold sway over public opinion.
Your comments:
There is no case, be it economic or otherwise, for the public endorsement of cigarette smoking. There is a case for freedom of choice on the grounds that tobacco smoking is but one of many self-harming practices.
Public censorship does more harm than good as it is the basis of the totalitarian state. My concern is why this council is dealing only in frivolous issues. Why is it not addressing the big issues - jihad, suicide bombers, rule of law, corruption, progress, the good name of Islam, etc?
Ken Maynard
Auckland, New Zealand
Martawardaya wrote in the article, "The fatwa has not gone far enough where public health is concerned, but it helps to see the problem more clearly than behind the usual smoke of myths."
I disagree! The ban on smoking is related to public health.
The MUI is another issue. Most of its edicts, including this one, are problematic. The two issues should stand independently.
Dude
I agree with this article. It reminds me of a film Thank You for Smoking (I suggest you watch it). Everybody knows that nobody lives forever like in Highlander. Even if the writer doesn't smoke, this article doesn't talk about death. It talks about health. It is our right to choose to live with or without cancer. But it is also our right to inhale clean air, right?
The tobacco factory owners are not the dumb ones. They don't give the tobacco farmers much. They get the best quality tobacco by paying the lowest price.
Satiti Soetrisno
This article is typical anti-smoking propaganda, without any scientific evidence. First and foremost, as the author himself says, it is and has to be, up to each individual to decide whether to smoke.
Here it is worth emphasizing that Nazi Germany was against smoking; the important point is that smoking is a totally personal decision, and fascists found it useful to legally restrict this personal decision, claiming it was unhealthy. No one has the right to tell other adults not to smoke, unless he or she is a closet fascist.
Speaking of the so-called "hazards of second-hand smoking", that this claim is a hoax was proved in 2003 by a brave and comprehensive study carried out by James E. Enstr*m of UCLA. The fact is that there is no damage from tobacco smoke.
Indonesians should know better than to allow quasi-science which is disguised as a religious edict to restrict one of our basic human rights, which is the right to light up when one feels like doing so. And after all, were tobacco to cause cancer, would it not be a part of our decision to get cancer? Or do Muslims believe that non-smokers live forever?
Sky High
It takes long and comprehensive research in order to be able to prove whether economic gain outweighs the overall cost of health problems caused by cigar smoking. However, it should be clear that non-smokers have the right not to be affected by such poison in public places.
Indonesia probably needs a state law that is consistently enforced to protect these rights. Otherwise, there will be too much intrusion of religion into the public sphere, an act that is a obstacle to democracy.
Lewotana
