Leading article: The birthday of the ban
Monday, 30 June 2008
The fall in the number of smokers one year since England and Wales banned smoking in public places is good news.
Years have passed since smoking was fashionable, but the habit has proved tenacious, so news that 400,000 have quit, while cigarette sales dropped by over two billion will be seen as proof that bans work.
They are certainly more popular. Ireland was on its own in Europe when it set the precedent in 2004. Since then, Norway, Scotland, England and Wales and, most recently, France, have followed suit. The Netherlands is to bring in a ban this week.
The rationale behind smoking bans is that denial of public space de-legitimises smoking, making it socially unacceptable and so contributing to its withering away.
But whether this logic holds water is not clear. It has not worked with hard drugs, the use of which has spread. Moreover, Ireland's experience raises questions. There, the number of smokers dropped after the ban was introduced only to climb back up a few years later.
The response of supporters of bans is to insist on further measures; bans, they say, need to be "built on". Doubters, meanwhile, say bans only segregate the non-smoking majority from a hard core who then prove indifferent to public pressure.
The lack of resistance to the ban in Britain has strengthened the case of those who advocated it. But we must watch trends carefully. If Britain follows Ireland's example, and cigarette sales recover, the use of illiberal measures such as bans should come under scrutiny and a discussion reopened over their use as aids in the battle to improve the nation's health.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
17 Comments
Cyril Sneer : 15.17
Here's a deal I can offer you. Show me factual scientific evidence that passive smoking is any more than a minuscule hazard to health and I will guarantee that I will be at least as supportive as you are of the public smoking ban. Because, like you, I'd be delighted if the general level of smoking were to be significantly reduced. Moreover, if it can be clearly demonstrated that atmospheric tobacco smoke is significantly HARMFUL to non-smokers, then I should be horrified if commercial interests were able to block legislation derived from Mill's harm principle.
But, what I am not prepared to do is to accept that it is correct practice for representative authority to process legislation, however well-meaning, by piggy-backing it on top of known lies or misrepresentations.
Perhaps I am alone in believing that society should require and demand from its leaders a code of ethics that is centred on honesty and fair representation.
Posted by Simon Stephenson | 30.06.08, 21:08 GMT
People like Michael don't seem to get the point that the law was brought in to protect workers' health. Health and safety legislation isn't voluntary so why should pubs be allowed to carry on harming their employees health, for the benefit of a tiny minority?
And they also forget that this legislation is popular and complied with. It is in the tradition of John Stuart Mill and the harm principle, not an attack on civil liberties. Smokers are still able to smoke outside, so in what way is it an abuse of their civil liberties?
Posted by Jon D | 30.06.08, 19:30 GMT
Cyril calls Jon a moron regarding second hand smoke when it is clear he has never looked at the evidence. If he wants to believe the lies spread by ASH and the government then it is quite apparent who the bigger moron is. I suppose he still believes that Saddam Hussain had WMD because the government said so.
If Cyril does not want to be around smokers then let us have our own premises where we can go. We can mix with other smokers and those non smokers not brainwashed by agencies who are being funded by the drug companies who sell nicotine replacement patches. He can then sit in his gastrobar with his glass of imported mineral water and think how clean the world is.
By the way- I do not drive but am subjected to diesel fumes daily. I do not cry to him about the dangers and smells which are much more evident and proven than second hand smoke.
Posted by Michael Peoples | 30.06.08, 16:59 GMT
Sorry. I meant to write, re, smoking clubs, "I have never heard a good argument for this." Simon's argument is precisely my own. I can never get it through to a lot of non-smokers. They eventually admit that if smoking clubs were allowed, they might be left on their own in smoke-free pubs.
Posted by jon | 30.06.08, 16:34 GMT
"if it is argued that it is correct to prohibit smoking in public places for no greater reason than that x% of people find it unpleasant"
Moron.
It's not just unpleasant, it's very damaging. Why should a non-smoker have to endure hazardous smoke?
Posted by Cyril Sneer | 30.06.08, 15:17 GMT
Jon : 13.04
"The ban prohibits a group of smokers renting or buying premises for use as a smoking club. I have never heard a good argument against this."
Try this one. The whole basis of law is one of single-standard precedent and principle. So if it is argued that it is correct to prohibit smoking in public places for no greater reason than that x% of people find it unpleasant, then application of a consistent single-standard would require one to accept that it is also correct to prohibit any other activity that x% consider to be unpleasant.
For example, there is a considerable body of opinion that finds it objectionable for large tracts of the countryside to be developed as golf courses. By your standards wouldn't it be correct, therefore, to prohibit a group of golfers renting or buying land for use as a golf club?
If you think about it, unpleasantness just isn't sufficient reason for legislation because it's impossible to justify on a basis that is intellectually sound.
Posted by Simon Stephenson | 30.06.08, 14:25 GMT
As an non-smoking Australian who lived under a smoking ban before moving to the Netherlands (which as the author notes is about to impose bans), I'm definitely welcoming the change, and I honestly couldn't care much less about whether this reduces the number of smokers. If they want to smoke where it won't make my environment unpleasant, then more power to them. Honestly, I'm generally even happy to head outside with smoking friends to continue a conversation - that's their choice, and it's mine. But the idea that smokers should be allowed to transform public areas into poisonous, smoke-filled chambers seems increasingly ridiculous, and it's hard to see objections to that as much more than whingeing!
Posted by Chris | 30.06.08, 14:02 GMT
The ban prohibits a group of smokers renting or buying premises for use as a smoking club. I have never heard a good argument against this.
Posted by jon | 30.06.08, 13:04 GMT
I think this aricle raises an important point about the key objective of bans on any activity in public places.
Unless you make an activity illegal in itself (which would clearly be not viable in the case of smoking or drinking, for example), then surely the primary objective of a ban is to protect the non-participating majority from the effects, whether health or social, and a reduction of participation (presumably as a result of the inconvenience) can only be a secondary objective.
Posted by Sue L | 30.06.08, 12:21 GMT
Peter : 01.03
"If smoking bans cause cigarette consumption to fall then that's a side benefit. A much larger benefit is that the health of non-smoking staff and customers is protected from the know hazard of secondhand smoke. That was the primary reason for the ban to begin with and that should not be forgotten."
You are perfectly entitled to believe this myth if you want to, but the truth is that there is no evidence from which it is possible to reach the honest conclusion that passive smoking is more than an infinitesimal risk to public health.
No, the central purpose of the ban was to reduce levels of ACTIVE smoking, and all the hoo-hah about passive smoking was deliberately dishonest window-dressing designed to suck the uncommitted into supporting the ban.
What needs not to be forgotten is that levels of scepticism and rebellion will directly relate to the amount of deception used by authority. The game's up for the merchants of spin - we won't get fooled again.
Posted by Simon Stephenson | 30.06.08, 11:19 GMT
17 Comments