108 days to go…
Posted by Anna Bull on March 14th, 2007
…until the smoking ban in public places comes into force in England on July 1st. Yay! I was there in Scotland when it happened a year ago and was a resounding success. Smokers were giving up in preparation for the ban and publicans were forced to admit that their dire predictions of loss of revenue were exaggerated as all the people who didn’t like smoky bars (me) started going out more even if some smokers went out less.
But hold on; if Scotland and Ireland have all got this ban already, two of the most tobacco-heavy countries in Europe, what has taken England so long? Why this unusual timidity in pushing through legislation that is clearly well overdue? People will look back in a year’s time and think, I can’t believe people used to smoke in bars, that’s disgusting! (at least, that’s the tone in Scotland, and there were predictions that implementing the ban would mean fights left, right and centre from belligerent addicts). The only criticism that detractors have managed to come up with is that children suffer more from passive smoking as their parents are now smoking at home instead of in the pub. This is clearly grasping at straws; if their parents were down at the pub smoking anyway, isn’t it better for the kids to have their parents at home with them (but there is no evidence for this; I think it’s just a chance to bring the poor, suffering (fictional) children in to the argument)
I imagine the government has dragged its heels over this because of fears of nanny-state accusations. However, while this government certainly has overstepped the mark in terms of civil liberties already (compare to Canada’s government who have now rescinded civil liberties laws put into place after 9/11), this is a completely different story. It’s a public health issue, and a case of the right to the many to good health over the right of the minority to act in a harm-giving way. It’s a no-brainer. And I, for one, will be out at the pub on July 1st.
Filed under: Uncategorized, scotland, society on March 14th, 2007
It isn’t a public health issue. Public health is about places that we cannot avoid, or health problems that are caused by something which affects everyone. This affects people who choose to go to pubs, despite the pleasing nomenclature ‘public house’ and ‘public health’. If smoke bothers you, don’t go to a pub that allows smoking. Vote with your feet. Plenty of pubs are offering this service. What we do not need is a blanket ban that means even if I were to set up a private members club in which every member was a smoker, that club would not be able to smoke inside. Particularly when that ban was prompted not by a great groundswell of public support, but by a desire to copy legislation from Ireland and Scotland. That should NEVER be a reason to adopt legislation.
This isn’t a civil liberties measure as such. It is a measure that calls into question the proper sphere of government. We have no civil liberties applicable to this. These
“right to the many to good health over the right of the minority to act in a harm-giving way” aren’t rights I’ve seen written down anywhere.
Should the government place a blanket ban on the serving of any meal, in any context outside a private home, with more than 2000 calories total? That would seem to be the proper sphere of government as you understand it.
If publicans feel more revenue will come from banning smoking, they would go ahead and do so. The market for pubs genuinely is quite free. Several can be found within minutes of one another in a city. If there is money to be made from non-smokers coming to pubs more often, unleash the market.
I, for two, will also be at the pub on July 1st, in the beer garden. But in December I will cursing this government and its pathetic copycat legislation.
It’s not the same as banning the serving of hugely calorific meals, because such meals do not exude fat into the stomachs of neighbouring diners, nor is the waiter obliged to constantly eat throughout every shift they work. Not all punters go to pubs in cities where they have a large selection of pubs from which to choose, some of which are non-smoking. Moreover, the staff in pubs and bars quite often have little option about what jobs they take; there aren’t that many opportunities for late-night work for full-time students, for example. I do think not allowing the establishment of private smoking clubs is much harder to justify, though.
Personally, I’m looking forward to the smoking ban. The way smoking bothers me most is the way my hair and clothes end up smelling. After July, I can enjoy the reek of sweat and alcohol uncorrupted.
Ok, toughen ventilation/air extraction regulations. Require non-smoking areas, properly differentiated. Although in most pubs, the non-smoking areas are the last to be occupied. Still no excuse for a blanket ban. The only justification I can see is ‘tyranny of the majority’. Most people simply won’t care about spheres of government, because they don’t smoke.
[...] well rehearsed, and the Independent’s change in stance absurd. But the real kick in the teeth is this July Having banned smoking inside, cannabis can never be legalised on the Dutch model. Nothing less than [...]
Owen has a very vaild point. Once against we face a dilemna over where the public and private spheres divide. I find it very hard to argue that a private members club, let’s say a golf club, set up by private individuals which had unanimously voted in favour of a smoking room, falls under the jurisdiction of government legislation banning the room and its function. I would even argue it is a dangerous precedent which we have set by allowing government to intervene so far into the private sphere. I see fewer issues with Public houses, they need a government license to run, although likewise can a compromise not be reached rather than the totalitarian use of blanket bans, as Owen has also suggested? Next I can hear the argument, “smoking must be banned in the home of famlies with young children, as it endangers their health.” Where is the boundary and is it not a slippery slope?
Patrick makes a good point that staff in pubs may not have much choice over the jobs they can take, and Owen, I think you miss this point; the ban is more for the sake of staff than customers who do, as you say, have the option not to be there.
I suppose consideration of the health of staff is the reason why smoking is also being banned in private members’ clubs. It has been illegal for decades now for workers to be exposed to asbestos, for example, and compensation has been paid out to those who have suffered ill health later in life because of this; what’s the difference in this scenario between asbestos and second-hand smoke?
No. That is absolutely not why smoking is being banned. Rules on ventilation, air extraction could be rewritten. Facemasks could be issued. Staff could breath through apparatus. Pubs could chose to hire smokers. Smoking at or near the bar could be banned (as it is in many pubs). A blanket ban is using a sledgehammer to crack an eggshell.
The whole issue of staff is simply a ’smokescreen’, which in no way justifies a blanket ban. Consider the timing, even if you don’t consider the excessive force of the legislation. This was a copycat law that happens to chime with the health-crusade mentality of the political class in Britain. With the added advantage that nobody seems to mind anti-smoking legislation. Today’s budget, whilst commendable in many respects, demonstrated this- another 11p on the price of a packet of cigarettes. Given that cigarettes cost under £1 a packet without tax, this is a pretty mercenary increase. But smokers will put up with it, and no-one else will care.
In fact, thinking about it, I take issue with the very idea of excessive ’sin tax’. Tax proportionate to paying for any medical care that might be required, fine- effectively a higher National Insurance premium. Tax far above and beyond these costs is state-defined moralising, something which I do not feel is appropriate in any ostensibly liberal state.
[...] post by annabull [...]