Smoking in public places
Posted by Stephen Williams, MP for Bristol West, at 21:03, Tue 1 November 2005:
During the election people often asked what new law would I like to introduce. My answer was to ban smoking in all public places, as this would have the most significant impact on improving people's health. The Labour government have included in their new Health Bill a section on restricting smoking in many, but not all, public places. I am the Lib Dems' Shadow Public Health Minister so will be heavily involved in the parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill. I believe that the government's proposed partial ban will perpetuate health inequalities and fail to protect employees. The "wet" pubs that do not serve food are predominately in areas of social deprivation where the incidence of smoking is still high. The ban will thus fail to operate in areas where it would achieve the greatest publlic health benefit.
I would be interested to hear the views of constituents on this issue.
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Fig, 22:45, Tue 1 November 2005: (Is this post abusive?) #
Stephen, What would happen under your proposals to ceremonial smoking, such as Shisha (Hookah) pipes in African and Middle Eastern cuisine restaurants (this smoke smells of fruit and is nice!); and cigar/pipe rooms in restaurants and hotels? Would we be living in a country where the only way someone wanting to smoke a birthday present of a fine Cuban cigar would be to go out into the rain?
Would the burning of incense and other plants indoors count as smoking, and if not why not?
I accept that the health argument of second hand smoke outweighs the civil-liberty argument of smoking; however the way to tackle this is to enforce air-quality indoors. Those venues without the will or money to ensure clean air would have no choice but to ban smoking themselves. Those venues that can ensure clean air wouldnt have a problem.
"Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool"
Fig
Posted by Aidan Bowes, 23:27, Tue 1 November 2005: (Is this post abusive?) #
Suffering from a chronic lung condition as I do I am overjoyed to see this bill go through. Like many of my fellow sufferers I would like it to go further, but I can understand the reluctance to go whole hog from the start.
For the most part I trust that the government will find some way to deal with oddities, as have many other countries introducing similar bills. Inevitably there will be loopholes, but if even half the places which currently allow smoking after the bill do not then it will be a success. Naturally I would prefer it to be 90%.
The one loophole that does need addressing is "smoking sections". The last line from the previous poster sums up my feelings on this issue extremely well.
Finally I will be able to go into a restaurant without sniffing the air first. -Aidan
Posted by Jim Lewis, 03:14, Wed 2 November 2005: (Is this post abusive?) #
As I understand it, any employer has a duty of care to ensure that their employees are not harmed simply by performing their normal duties.
As the health risks associated with being forced to smoke second hand smoke have been proven conclusively, I can see no argument for having exceptions to this rule.
In other countries where the implementation of the smoking ban has not been bungled in the way that this government has here, outdoor areas have been created to protect customers from the worst of the elements to allow them to feed their habit without inflicting it on the employees.
It works in numerous other countries, why should Britain, (and if the Scottish and Welsh assemblies have their way, only England), be different?
Posted by Min Ahmed, 10:05, Wed 2 November 2005: (Is this post abusive?) #
I broadly agree with the measures by the labour party. However your point about people in deprived areas not benefiting from this new law is also valid. My suggestion would be to identify these areas (there are schemes in place that deal with identification), and place 100% ban in these deprived areas.
I am also worried that smokers for many years have been the scapegoat for all medical ills. Having worked in research in the NHS, I have to say that lifestyle and what we eat contributes just as much if not more to our health as smoking.
My worry is that smokers are an easy target. The argument being that "smoke" affects others, who do not have the choice to "be" passive smokers, is not valid. An unhealthy diet also affects those who do not have a choice (children, families of victims to a whole hot of illnesses caused by bad diet).
I also think that the tobacco companies will just find alternative markets in the 3rd world. How do we prevent this from happening?
I personally support the labour policy and smoking in deprived areas is an important issue, which will require a solution, not necessarily the one mentioned above, but for me an all out 100% ban is a no.
I do not want to live in a society where individual choice is taken away by an ever increasing desire by politicians to infantilise our citizens. There should be supportive legislation that counteracts the marketing of tobacco, health education and especially education in healthy lifestyles in general.
Min Ahmed (ex smoker and Labour Party Member)
Posted by Chris Halward, 18:18, Thu 3 November 2005: (Is this post abusive?) #
I don't beleive we should ban smoking from all public places. Let's allow people to work matters out for themselves rather than always looking to legislate. Invariably this law will be difficult to draft and even more difficult to enforce. The focus should be on discouraging young people from smoking - perhaps a ban on anyone under the age of 18 from smoking (not just purchasing cigarettes). Why not stop cigatrettes from being sold other than by licensed shops whose license would be withdrawn if it were proved that they sold cigarettes to anyone under age?