The Final Drag: England to Ban Smoking in Public Places

Use the drop down boxes below to find resources related to this page.

At your Leisure - 22 November 2004

The Government published its much anticipated White Paper on public health on November 16th 2004. Amongst its key proposals is a measure to outlaw smoking in public areas, aimed at boosting public health by getting more people to quit and protecting non-smokers from breathing smoke fumes. But is this action fair? What will its likely impact be on firms in the leisure sector? Is it right for the state to interfere with the rights of individuals to choose? And, finally, what is the evidence that such a ban will actually work? This At your Leisure considers these issues and asks, is this the final drag for smoking in Britain?

What is the Government proposing?

The White Paper (used to propose legislation that the Government is considering) actually seeks to affect society in a wide range of areas. It sets out the ways in which the Government intends to deal with a variety of public health problems, such as obesity, sexual ill-health and alcohol abuse, inequality in health according to level of affluence, as well as smoking related disease. Among its proposals are the following:

The proposed smoking ban will be applied gradually over the next four years. Firstly, all government departments will be smoke-free by 2006. The ban will then be applied to all enclosed public places by the end of 2007. The final step is to extend the ban to licensed premises by 2008.

But it appears that this final step will apply only to pubs and other licensed premises that serve food. This definition does not seem to include packets of crisps and pork scratchings, though, as only pubs that prepare food in a kitchen will be affected. Department of Health sources admitted that premises serving only salads or food heated in a microwave would also be exempt from the ban. Other key aspects of the smoking ban include the following provisions:

Why is this ban on smoking in public needed?

The Government argues that it is a sensible balance between the rights of individuals to exercise free choice and on the other hand, the rights of the public not to be subjected to environmental pollution caused by smoky atmospheres in public places. It seems obvious that the state would want to outlaw smoking at the counters of pubs and clubs in order to protect staff from the effects of passive smoking. But what about the rest of the population? Will a ban on smoking in enclosed public places really help the nation's health, or would a more coherent policy be to include all diesel and 4X4 vehicles in such a ban?

For years the tobacco industry questioned whether there was any evidence that smoking actually caused disease. Litigation in the USA brought this evidence into the open and has led increasing numbers of countries to introduce a ban. Scientific evidence on the dangers of passive smoking is accumulating; in October 2004, a leaked report from the Scientific Community on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) was said to find that no infant, child or adult should be exposed to second-hand smoke.

At present an estimated 26% of the UK public smokes and the statistics on smoking-related deaths underpin the need for action on smoking in England:

This evidence suggests that an outright ban on smoking in public would be sensible. The proposals for England are just the most recent in a growing list of cities and countries banning the 'evil weed'. In Scotland, all pubs, clubs, restaurants and workplaces will become smoke-free by spring 2006, if legislation by the Scottish Executive is introduced as planned by Christmas 2004. The plans are for employers and licensees to be fined up to £2,500 if they fail to prevent smoking in their establishments. Individual smokers will be subject to fixed penalty notices and fines of up to £1,000 if they fail to comply with the law.

What is the likely impact of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places?

In Ireland, a ban on smoking in all public areas, including all bars, nightclubs and restaurants was introduced on March 29th 2004. Smoking in Canada and Norway, California and New York City in the USA and New South Wales in Australia has also been outlawed in public places, but it is still uncertain if it works. Those in favour say that it encourages smokers to quit, deters non-smokers from taking up the habit and prevents passive smoking. Those against claim that a ban is ineffective and damages business.

So far, the experience in California suggests that its two year old ban carries a great deal of public support, with nearly three-quarters of people in favour of the ban. However smokers still account for 18% of the Californian population, a figure that has failed to decline since the ban was introduced. But the average age at which smokers quit has fallen there from 48 to 43. A study in New South Wales found that restaurants are not adversely affected by the ban in that state: three quarters of establishments report normal trade, 14% increased business, whilst only 9% said trade had fallen since the ban had been in force.

Should Government be able to impose this on us?

The question of whether the state should be able to say what we can do and where we can do it, is finely balanced: libertarians argue that this is a matter of individual responsibility; but social protectionists believe that passive smoking threatens the health of people who currently have no choice over whether or not to breathe other people's smoke.

Image: State legislation enforced the compulsory wearing of seat belts - is this the right approach to take to reduce smoking? Copyright: Jamie Harris, stock.xchng

The fact remains that if the state had not legislated for the introduction of certain public health and safety measures, then issues such as drink-driving or the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars would not have become important. It is doubtful whether, without legislation, people would have accepted voluntarily the change in behaviour necessary to make a difference to public health.

But what are the limits to the state's ability to regulate on aspects of our lives? If the threats to public health and safety are so severe, why shouldn't smoking be banned in private households? Apart from the obvious difficulties of policing such an outright ban, there is the unwillingness of legislators to cross the threshold into people's private lives, as was illustrated by the reluctance of Parliament to impose a blanket ban on smacking children.

There are also the socio-economic aspects of smoking: if you're less affluent and from an area with a greater concentration of poverty, you're more likely to smoke, less likely to give up smoking and more vulnerable to related health problems. The Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, recognised this when remarking that people from low income groups should be allowed to smoke, as it is one of their few pleasures in life.

But the macro-economic perspective of the argument involves us seeing the costs of treating smoking-related health problems weighed against the revenues flowing to the exchequer (the public purse), generated by the tax that is levied on tobacco sales. Some say that whatever the benefits of a smoking ban to society as a whole, the Government is unlikely to be able to wean itself off these tax revenues, which is what an outright ban would involve.

Smoking as the new faux pas?

Finally, there is a question of social conformity in applying a ban on smoking in public places: it was not long ago that smoking was permitted on public transport in the UK. That has largely gone now and the vast majority of people accept new restrictions on personal freedom. But in countries like Spain and Portugal, members of the public appear to be far likelier to disregard no smoking rules in public places. Perhaps it is realistic to expect individual countries to set their own regulations, rather than relying on the European Union to make policy.

For anyone born in the UK after the 1970s, it must be hard to imagine how some train carriages, buses, cinemas and waiting rooms used to become virtually smoke-logged. But the reality is that in the past, people used to accept these conditions; those who complained about their inability to breathe in such settings were instructed not to be such killjoys. Times have changed; smokers rather than non-smokers are now required to stand outside in order to exercise their personal freedom.

The impact on the leisure sector of introducing a partial ban on smoking in bars, clubs and restaurants, will be able to be judged only when sufficient evidence from many countries, cities and states has been collected. Only then will we be able to assess whether clean air comes at too high a price for some.

Activity

Consider how the following business organisations might be affected by a smoking ban in public places:
- Suppliers of outdoor heaters
- Nicotine patch retailers
- Cigarette machine distributors
In recent years some pubs have expanded their services by hosting community learning programmes in subjects like computer literacy. Imagine that a pub you run chooses to offer sessions to help customers quit smoking. Design a poster to promote these services.
Is it right for the state to intervene in society to this extent?
In two groups, write a list of the arguments in favour of or against Government action to ban smoking in public places. Use the following thoughts to prompt your group discussions:
- Which is the worst social ill? Passive smoking, obesity or alcohol abuse?
- Society is self-regulating. All it needs is information on the pros and cons of certain actions in order to make up the minds of a majority.
- Without state intervention it would still be socially acceptable to drive a car with significant amounts of alcohol in your blood stream.

	You are here: Home > Current Topics > At your Leisure > 22 November 2004

At your Leisure - 22 November 2004