I explain to my British friends that small quantities of Russian vodka, served ice-cold and drunk in this way with sour cucumbers or salted fish, is a real delicacy. I explain that no Russian would sip vodka over a long period without food. (The British often drink without food, which is a bad habit.) Having tried both methods, I think Russians are right in their way of consuming their national drink. However, to gulp down anything else - including whisky and brandy - is indeed barbarous. These are sophisticated drinks, and swallowing them is a terrible waste. They should be sipped and savoured.
One Russian custom is not traditional in Britain. We do not believe that it is necessary to 'finish the bottle'. The mark of a civilised drinker is to be able to drink as much as is pleasant and decent, without getting drunk and without finishing the bottle. If several people are enjoying themselves, bottles will be finished - but that is a matter of chance, not of pride. Only the ignorant, the barbarous and stupid teenagers try to finish the bottle for its own sake.
Should our British traditions of drinking, at home and in the pub or restaurant or club be changed? Most people seem to think that we have found a reasonable way of living with alcohol, as a nation, but agree that the problems of alcoholism are nonetheless widespread and, overall, far more damaging than the problems of illegal drugs. Sometimes governments propose bringing in more restrictive legislation, but they are immediately told that to do so would be grossly unfair to the millions of quiet civilised drinkers in our country. Such people may be deluded, but it is difficult to see that moderate drinking does any harm - and it gives a great deal of pleasure. I am also struck by the fact that of all the people whom I have consulted for this chapter, everyone drinks and none believes that he or she, personally, drinks too much!
Smoking is a different story. The evidence that smoking is bad for our health is overwhelming. True, some individuals can smoke like a chimney from nine to ninety, and die peacefully of old age. But this is rare. Statistically, smoking, even a small amount, lowers life expectancy (the age at which statistically you are likely to die) and it is a prime cause of many very unpleasant and fatal illnesses. Any sensible person who has studied the facts will not start, or will give up, smoking.
In Britain the number of smokers has declined steadily since the 1960s, when the true dangers of inhaling nicotine and tar were demonstrated by scientists. During the 1990s this declining trend levelled out, and even, in the case of girls, began to rise again. It is as though many teenagers, especially girls, want to try out smoking as a new experience. Fortunately most of them then give it up. Around 15% of the professional classes (highly educated, specially trained, well-paid people) smoke; among unskilled manual workers and low-paid women workers, the percentage who smoke is higher, around 26%. Of those who do smoke, around two-thirds say they would like to give up the habit, but, not surprisingly, heavy smokers (smoking more than 20 cigarettes a day) are much less keen to do so.
On 1st July 2007 a law was passed to ban smoking in all public enclosed and almost-enclosed places. That includes offices, factories, shops, restaurants, cinemas, buses, trains, pubs and other places of entertainment. Before the law was passed there was a big public debate - another of the more successful examples of democracy in practice in the sense that Government proposals were based on scientific research, economics, reports from the National Health Service and the opinions of the public, sought out in many different ways.
Although the law was passed by a large majority in Parliament, there were those who opposed it. To the smoker's ears, these proposals and regulations were enunciated by puritanical killjoys who took pleasure in telling other people what they should not do. Was it right for a pub landlord to be forced to turn away local regulars - elderly men, most of them - who had always smoked in that particular pub and whose enjoyment would be destroyed if they were forbidden to do so in order to satisfy the demands of non-smokers who probably would not visit that pub anyway? Even non-smokers were sometimes troubled by the aggressive tone of the anti-smoking campaigners: 'I don't smoke myself, but aren't we in danger of reducing smokers to guilt-ridden, psychologically-damaged individuals by all this authoritarian moral bullying?'
Despite these objections and this unease, British social attitudes to nicotine have undergone a huge change.
The economic arguments were complicated. (They may seem cynical, but they had to be calculated since we all depend on the money raised in Britain to pay for our services including the National Health Service.) Like alcohol, smoking is heavily taxed and brings in vast sums to the Treasury. So if people stop smoking, the government loses millions in tax revenues. On the other hand, doctors point out that fewer smokers would be bound to save the country money, because so much NHS money is currently being spent on smoke-related illnesses. We have to think of the lung cancers, the heart diseases, the infertility.
In fact the ban has been accepted with little fuss. For many years restrictions on cigarette advertisements together with constant propaganda and much help from the Health Service for those who wish to give up have managed to change our culture. In sharp contrast to the pleasant atmosphere in which alcohol can be drunk, the places available for smoker are mostly uncomfortable if they leave their own homes. Fewer people smoke; they smoke less; and they mostly smoke outside in the street, in huddled groups, if necessary in the dark and rain. As a result, Britain has become a cleaner and (in this respect) a healthier place.
Illegal drugs raise different questions. Which drugs should be illegal and why? What is the difference between alcohol and nicotine which are legal but regulated, and heroin, cocaine and other drugs for which you can be sent to prison if you are caught using them?
First, it should be stressed that only a small minority of the population uses or has used illegal drugs. So they are unlike nicotine, and quite unlike alcohol in the questions they raise about British culture and about government policy. Cannabis, by far the most widely used of illegal drugs, causes much confusion because the Government cannot decide how serious a drug it is. It was banned, then demoted to a not-very-serious drug, and then banned again. In 2009 its use is declining; looking back at their past, about 15 million people would admit to having tried it at least once or twice most of these millions did not go much further. Research suggests that there are between two and five million users today, most of them using it sparsely but regularly. The largest group are aged between 16 and 24, but the next largest group are people over 65, partly because many elderly people with a range of illnesses take it to reduce their pain. (Since the drug has been made illegal again, getting information about its use is difficult. Those who use it as pain relief are terrified that they will be accused and the drug which they have acquired with difficulty will be confiscated.)
Laws which are widely ignored undermine the efforts of sensible authorities. The vagueness of the cannabis law makes life particularly difficult for those who are supposed to be looking after children. One London schoolteacher told me: 'It was easy to establish a school rule of 'No alcohol to be drunk on the school premises!', because all the pupils understood that alcohol had to be regulated. The school rule was an aspect of that regulation. By contrast, when cannabis is a criminal offence flouted by so many, it is impossible for a school teacher to say, 'No smoking of cannabis between lessons!' since cannabis officially does not exist in the school. Pupils exploited the hypocrisy and confusion by openly smoking the drug. (Note that the teacher was referring to an inner-London school. In many school in quieter and more rural parts of the country the problem of illegal drug use scarcely exists among schoolchildren, although any enterprising child who wishes to experiment with cannabis can do so.)