The
series “Mad Men” still hasn’t debuted in Brasil. What a shame. It’s as good as
it gets. “Mad Men” is the perfect picture of Madison Avenue publicists in
sophisticated 1960s New York. But it’s more than this. It’s a mosaic on the
great American transition: from the conformity of the “fifties” to the
counter-culture of the “sixties.”
One
detail, however, does surprise the philistines: smoking. In “Mad Men,” everyone
smokes with a kind of natural nonchalance that seems almost heretical. Inside
buildings, outside buildings; mothers, fathers; employees, employers; and
doctors, of course, starting with a gynecologist holding a cigarette in one
hand while performing and exam with the other! What a balancing act.
So
much smoking shouldn’t be surprising. I personally remember the time my
grandfather would took me to the movies, and smoke in the theater, for most of
the film.
And,
historically, “Mad Men” was at the turning point. In 1950, Richard Doll
published the first scientific essay on the relation between smoking and
disease. Only in 1970 did the myth of “second hand smoking” come up. I say
“myth” deliberately. There has never been any rigorous scientific study
demonstrating a relation between “second hand” smoke and cancer.
This
does not mean there are no studies on this hypothesis. Christopher Booker, a
specialist on modern fad movements, points to two – the biggest and most recent
ones. The first one was made by the World Health Organization’s International
Agency for Research on Cancer. The second was conducted by James Enstrom and
Geoffrey Kabat, over the course of 40 years, for the American Cancer Society
through the observation of 35 thousand non-smokers that had daily contact with
smokers. The results? I repeat: a myth is a myth is a myth.
And
an ideology is an ideology is an ideology. Sometimes I argue that certain Nazi
traits survived 1945. People insult me; I don’t respond. Just look around to
realize that some of our basic medical routines would have pleased Uncle Adolf
and his pursuit of perfection on earth – for example, certain forms of
“respectable” eugenics, practiced by millions of people when they
receive a bad ultrasound, or the absolute demonization that the modern smoker
is subjected to in the United States and in Europe. And now, alas, in São
Paulo.
I
read the anti-smoking legislation of São Paulo and recognized its totalitarian
nature, once again dominated by this unique idea of physical perfection.
It all
starts by raising the lie to the dogma: the dogma
that “second hand smoking” is a serious
danger to others. The dogma is not only unrealistic; it is also dangerous
because it immediately
establishes a moral divide between
those involved in corruption
(smokers)
and the innocent victims (non-smokers). Just replace
“smoker” with “Jew” and “non-smoker” for “Aryan” to go back to 1933.
And going back to 1933 is returning
to a world that
despises individual freedom with unusual ferocity. The “smoke free” law is such an
example. Banning smoking in enclosed
spaces such as bars and restaurants is an attack on private property and the
freedom of each owner to decide what type
of clients want to allow. The same reasoning applies to
customers, who are now unable to choose freely where they
may patronize.
But the best part of the law is the policing. Imitating the
worst tactics of closed societies, the law promotes whistle blowing as a form
of social interaction. By phone or by the Internet, each citizen is invited to
watch his neighbor, denouncing “deviant” behavior. This is not going
back to 1933. This is, at least, going back to Russia in 1917. If we add to the
picture a real “health police” which attacks in plain clothes, it is
possible to conclude that the KGB spirit immigrated to Brazil.
Finally, let’s remember the essential point: political
extremism only thrives in societies that are complicit or at least indifferent
towards the extremists. Is São Paulo this kind of society?
It appears so. The latest Datafolha poll is grim: the
overwhelming majority of São Paulo (88%) approves the smoke free law. Only 10% oppose it. Only 2% are indifferent to it. More ironic
is the perspective of smokers: after years and years of
propaganda and dehumanization, they look in the mirror, and feel disgusted with themselves and even agree with the law (77%). Karl Kraus was right when he stated
that, in Vienna in the beginning of the last century, anti-Semitism was so
normal that even the Jewish practiced it. A terrible omen.
Nota: as visões expressas no artigo não são necessariamente aquelas do Instituto Mises Brasil.
