Total ban on smoking in public places from 2007 in England
Posted: Thu 16 Feb, 2006 16.11
Surprised there's not yet been a topic on this but..
Along with similar legislation affecting Scotland, and pending new legislation for Northern Ireland, it was announced a couple of days ago that there will be a total ban on smoking in public places in England from 'summer 2007' (it seems that, rather oddly, they were quite able to make the difficult decision to ban it, but unable to make the easy decision of when to do it outside of a vague 3 month period).
My own viewpoint on this has remained unchanged ever since the idea of a smoking ban was first suggested: it is wrong.
Yes, customers and employees do have the right to enjoy a smoke free environment if they so wish - but they have a very easy way of achieving that; just don't go to/work at places which allow smoking.
If there were a proposal to ban smoking on public streets, then I would wholeheartedly support it, but banning it in 'public places' - actually meaning 'businesses with public rooms which are nevertheless private property' - is not something I can see as being legal. In the case of my local publican, the government is literally telling him what he can do in his own house.
When the owner is a smoker, all staff are advised that he operates a smoking pub and should not work there if offended by smoking, and all customers either smoke or are tolerant of smoking, why on earth should the government have the right to make that activity illegal? Why should the government have the right to impose a blanket ban on a perfectly lawful activity (which smoking still is - something I think the anti-smoking lobby need to remember some times) just to satisfy a group of people who may not even use the premises in question?
Health arguments might be valid medically, but using them politically is nothing more than a two faced move; the same government which sponsers NHS anti-smoking campaigns and has drafted in a blanket ban on smoking in pubs when the majority of regular users of such establishments do not mind it but arguing that it will save lives and be better for public health, would also reach diarrhoea-levels of shitting itself at the thought of a significant decline in the number of smokers resulting in a serious loss of the highly lucrative revenue they bring in from tobacco products.
If smoking is so terrible, then don't ban the practice of it in certain places, just ban it. Outright. Make it totally illegal to smoke - and with it loose all the duty which they presently get from tobacco sales. Any other form of smoking ban is nothing more than a hypocritical willy waving excercise.
It's interesting also to note that in the run up to a general election, they were announcing legislation which would merely see smoking banned on premises which served food, less than 12 months later, they've done a remarkable U-turn and are set to outrightly ban it in all public places.
There was however, no need for this to happen. There are plenty of premises which would (and allready do) voluntarily ban smoking on their premises whilst allowing those who wish to smoke (which I repeat is still a perfectly legal activity) a public environment in which to do it.
What I have always believed should have happened was for it to be compulsary for premises to state their smoking policy (as a huge number of premises allready do voluntarily), and for all prospective employees to be advised of the smoking policy when interviewed, and for whichever policy a premises adopts to be legally enforceable.
But deciding that pubs owned by smokers, staffed by smokers, and patronised by smokers should not be allowed to permit smoking is ridiculous.
To those who argue back with the health risks I say this; "fine, I'm not denying the health risks which do exist. So if you want to save lives. Ban smoking. Alltogether. Then ask yourself why the government won't do that. But if they won't, why is it fair to impose a smoking on places where the management consider it acceptable to smoke?"
Along with similar legislation affecting Scotland, and pending new legislation for Northern Ireland, it was announced a couple of days ago that there will be a total ban on smoking in public places in England from 'summer 2007' (it seems that, rather oddly, they were quite able to make the difficult decision to ban it, but unable to make the easy decision of when to do it outside of a vague 3 month period).
My own viewpoint on this has remained unchanged ever since the idea of a smoking ban was first suggested: it is wrong.
Yes, customers and employees do have the right to enjoy a smoke free environment if they so wish - but they have a very easy way of achieving that; just don't go to/work at places which allow smoking.
If there were a proposal to ban smoking on public streets, then I would wholeheartedly support it, but banning it in 'public places' - actually meaning 'businesses with public rooms which are nevertheless private property' - is not something I can see as being legal. In the case of my local publican, the government is literally telling him what he can do in his own house.
When the owner is a smoker, all staff are advised that he operates a smoking pub and should not work there if offended by smoking, and all customers either smoke or are tolerant of smoking, why on earth should the government have the right to make that activity illegal? Why should the government have the right to impose a blanket ban on a perfectly lawful activity (which smoking still is - something I think the anti-smoking lobby need to remember some times) just to satisfy a group of people who may not even use the premises in question?
Health arguments might be valid medically, but using them politically is nothing more than a two faced move; the same government which sponsers NHS anti-smoking campaigns and has drafted in a blanket ban on smoking in pubs when the majority of regular users of such establishments do not mind it but arguing that it will save lives and be better for public health, would also reach diarrhoea-levels of shitting itself at the thought of a significant decline in the number of smokers resulting in a serious loss of the highly lucrative revenue they bring in from tobacco products.
If smoking is so terrible, then don't ban the practice of it in certain places, just ban it. Outright. Make it totally illegal to smoke - and with it loose all the duty which they presently get from tobacco sales. Any other form of smoking ban is nothing more than a hypocritical willy waving excercise.
It's interesting also to note that in the run up to a general election, they were announcing legislation which would merely see smoking banned on premises which served food, less than 12 months later, they've done a remarkable U-turn and are set to outrightly ban it in all public places.
There was however, no need for this to happen. There are plenty of premises which would (and allready do) voluntarily ban smoking on their premises whilst allowing those who wish to smoke (which I repeat is still a perfectly legal activity) a public environment in which to do it.
What I have always believed should have happened was for it to be compulsary for premises to state their smoking policy (as a huge number of premises allready do voluntarily), and for all prospective employees to be advised of the smoking policy when interviewed, and for whichever policy a premises adopts to be legally enforceable.
But deciding that pubs owned by smokers, staffed by smokers, and patronised by smokers should not be allowed to permit smoking is ridiculous.
To those who argue back with the health risks I say this; "fine, I'm not denying the health risks which do exist. So if you want to save lives. Ban smoking. Alltogether. Then ask yourself why the government won't do that. But if they won't, why is it fair to impose a smoking on places where the management consider it acceptable to smoke?"