Cabinet agrees England smoke ban

[Skyline_GTR]

Ministers have agreed plans for a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in England - with exemptions for clubs and pubs not serving food. The U-turn comes after days of wrangling and means a return to the pledge set out in Labour's manifesto.

It is seen as a blow for Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt who wanted a wider ban. The British Medical Association branded the move an "utter disappointment" and a "wasted opportunity". The plans include a commitment to a review after three years.

Smoke-free

Ministers were under pressure from unions, anti-smoking campaigners and Labour backbenchers to introduce a blanket ban, in line with the ones planned for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Some Cabinet members, believed to include former health secretary John Reid, were in favour of sticking to Labour's election manifesto commitment.

This said pubs not serving food and members-only clubs could choose whether or not to ban smoking.

Ms Hewitt wanted a compromise, with smoking allowed in sealed smoking rooms, away from pub staff, but she has been forced to drop this idea after Cabinet opposition.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the health secretary had "set a third way and stood in the middle of the road and was, frankly, run over".

However, Ms Hewitt said the proposals, to be introduced to the Commons on Thursday, would be "widely welcomed".

"As promised in Labour's manifesto, the Health Bill will include a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places which will cover 99% of the workforce," she said in a statement.

The proposals mean all restaurants in England would be smoke-free, along with pubs and bars serving food, she added, and "non-food" pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking, or be smoke-free.

'Welcomed'

Smoking in all bar areas would be banned, with further consultation on how to achieve this, "including on discrete smoking rooms or areas to protect staff".

"We will monitor these proposals and there will be a review after three years.

"I believe this bill will be very widely welcomed as a major step forward in protecting people from second-hand smoke, and improving the health of the nation," Ms Hewitt said.

But Professor Alex Markham, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said he was "utterly dismayed" that the government "had not listened to doctors, health charities and the public, all of whom have voiced overwhelming support for a smoke-free law without exemptions".

James Johnson, chairman of the British Medical Association, expressed his "utter disappointment" at the "wasted opportunity to protect the public's health".

Grilling

Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said: "This missed opportunity is very disappointing...if ministers cannot agree among themselves, then they should give MPs a free vote."

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said the Conservatives wanted "severe restrictions" on smoking in enclosed public places to protect workers and children but MPs should have the final say.

"The government's current approach is a U-turn on previous policy and its application is riddled with flaws.

"For example, it does not address health inequalities, as pubs in the most deprived areas pubs do not usually serve food anyway."

Kevin Barron, Labour chairman of the Commons health select committee, has said only the "ego" of former health secretary John Reid, who drew up the manifesto proposals, was standing in the way of a blanket ban.

Ms Hewitt is due to be grilled by members of Mr Barron's committee on Thursday, ahead of the publication of the bill.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Cabinet agrees England smoke ban

BBC News
26 October 2005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4377250.stm

 

[qwe]

so if you own a business, you aren't the one who should be able to say whether people can smoke on your own property. the govt is

 

[Johnny1]

How could it take them so long to do this? Smoking indoors in public is completely gross and rude. You don't pee in the corner in a restaurant, do you? You don't grab the breasts of every goodlooking girl who walks by, right? What makes smokers think their smoke stays in their own lungs?

There are some things that are so offensive that the majority has to take things into their own hands and pass a law, so that the clueless and/or selfish minority has no choice but to learn how to be civilized.

 

[CreativeRandom]

so if you own a business, you aren't the one who should be able to say whether people can smoke on your own property. the govt is

I'm with you 100% on that one. New York passed a similiar law about 2 years ago, except it was that there was no smoking inside any building unless there it is selective in who goes in (private, membership clubs). That caused hell, but UK decides to copy it? Reminds me of the failing drug policy....

How could it take them so long to do this? Smoking indoors in public is completely gross and rude. You don't pee in the corner in a restaurant, do you? You don't grab the breasts of every goodlooking girl who walks by, right? What makes smokers think their smoke stays in their own lungs?

There are some things that are so offensive that the majority has to take things into their own hands and pass a law, so that the clueless and/or selfish minority has no choice but to learn how to be civilized.

I have no problem with banning smoking on government property. I have no problem with banning smoking on government paved sidewalks outside of residential areas. I do have a problem when private businesses lose control of what they allow. All of the sudden the government can tell me how to run my business in such an intrusive manner? Now, I can't offer a bar where one can smoke a cig and drink a beer?

 

[guikid]

its all about illusions people, if they cant stop people from smoking, then they try to make it so they cant see it, therefore they can feel they made a difference. Kind of like moving to the country to avoid the troubles of the city, the problems are still there,but its easier not to give a fuck about,plus it smells nicer.

 

[Johnny1]

You're not allowed to own a bar or restaurant where you serve people poisoned food and drink. So why should you be allowed to own a bar that has poisoned air?

Tell me another drug that when you use it, those around you use it too. There are none! Stop acting like it's such a right. Smokers are such selfish whiners.

 

[stoy420]

well, I can understand with resturaunts and such, places where children and families go. Perhaps they should have allowed for sealed smoking rooms, as you cant always eat outside, especially in the UK (or at least I'd imagine). Hopefully they wont change this to include pubs and clubs like they have here in California, as well as NY and probly a good number of other states

 

[qwe]

You're not allowed to own a bar or restaurant where you serve people poisoned food and drink

Almost every resturant serves ethanol. many cities have a very polluted environment

So why should you be allowed to own a bar that has poisoned air?

1. campfires are loads worse. ban them first. they are the ones actually affecting families (whereas private bars don't) 2. if people don't like smoke, they can go to another place to eat/drink that is smoke free, or has a smoke free section. but when the govt gets involved, it's only criminalizing CONSENTING adults (although western nations seem to have no problem doing this anyway but considering the site you're on you should be against it)

Tell me another drug that when you use it, those around you use it too

i'm a bit skeptical the terrible dangers of second hand smoke. please give me a few studies agreeing with you, a few that dont, and your explanation as to why the latter arent credible. then ill hop right on the anti public smoking bandwagon

Smokers are such selfish whiners

here we see your bias shine true and clear

 

[CreativeRandom]

if people don't like smoke, they can go to another place to eat/drink that is smoke free, or has a smoke free section. but when the govt gets involved, it's only criminalizing CONSENTING adults (although western nations seem to have no problem doing this anyway but considering the site you're on you should be against it)

Exactly. Businesses are free to choose who they serve and who they appeal to. So they lose customers because of the cigarette rules they have, so what? They will either appeal to the customers and make rules, or not give a fuck because they want to run things that way. They are FREE to choose. Should we force high school dropouts back into school because it will be better for them?

There is second hand smoke everywhere. 12 hours in Mexico City is equivalent to smoking three packs of Marlboros. Time spent in almost any metropolitan area will do to your lungs what at least one pack of cigarettes will. While I am not trying to play down the risks of second hand smoke as I am aware of the dangers and health risks it causes, you cannot interfere with a businesses role. It is something individuals choose to do and it is their freedom. As long as people are able to choose to leave the area, I have no problem with smokers there as a rule (personally, maybe).

Places like school where kids MUST stay, or hospitals, no smoking. Bars, clubs, department stores, its none of my fucking business. They will suffer anyways when I go somewhere else to buy my shit, and change their policy or suffer bankruptcy. Economics is the ultimate power in policy.

Smokers are such selfish whiners

Haha, all seriousness aside, I agree.

 

[Johnny1]

^ qwe, it's not a bias if it's true, ha ha ha.

We went smoke-free in bars in Los Angeles several years ago and it's sooo much nicer to go out at night. The smokers can still smoke, just outside, and we don't come home to bury our faces in our beautiful women's (or men's) necks only to smell a hair full of stink anymore. The bars still make plenty of money, and I haven't heard someone complain about this law here in years.

 

[qwe]

^the point is...

it's fine if a private business does that on its own. then you can choose to consume that business's goods

but when it's a law, no matter what your opinion on the matter is, you're prying into how the business does its own business

 

[CreativeRandom]

Mad props for qwe.

 

[snowshovel]

^In theory, it should work like you say: the businesses should be free to choose whether or not to allow smoking, and the customers should be free to choose which establishment they go to. "Everybody wins".

But is this really how it is borne out in practice? How many non-smoking bars or pubs do you actually know (in places with no anti-smoking legislation)?

If someone opens a bar they would be crazy to make it non-smoking, since it would drive all the smokers away. On the other hand, if you allow smoking the non-smokers will still come because they're used to putting up with it, and every other bar is just the same. So really, the businesses aren't free to choose at all. The market forces them to conform.

How many non-smokers really have the time to trek around town and find somewhere with no smoke? What about the people who don't even give it a moment's thought, go out for a drink or two in what seems a harmless establishment, and inadvertently breathe in the equivalent of several cigarettes? Is it somehow their fault because they didn't exercise their choice correctly?

The "choice" theory works great on paper, but not in real life. The fact is that a great many people are unhappy with the situation at the moment, and that's why they want to change the law.

 

[static_mind]

Im totally for these kind of laws. Recently they were passed here in Australia and im happer. You can go to a pub and club and not smell of smoke at the end.

If you wanner smoke fine but cant you do it out side. I wouldnt stand next you you farting and farting and farting. If someone next to you had terriable body oder you smokers would complain. But for some reason im ment to put up with you and others filling the bar up with your TOXIC smoke? Why should we have to put up with yoru smokeing?


Estimated mortality rate from secondhand smoke among club, pub, tavern and club in New South Whales Australia
www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1020

Not the best but its something to look at.

 

[kittyinthedark]

If I'm going to have to live in a nanny state, I'm happy to have this nanny law. As a libertarian, i'll leave it at that.

 

[snowshovel]

^It's not a "nanny law" the way I see it - that would mean they were trying to prevent people doing themselves harm. Banning tobacco altogether, for example, would be a nanny law. The idea behind a smoking ban in indoor public places is to prevent people from causing harm and discomfort to others.

 

[Ataxia]

As an ex-smoker, I can sympathise for both sides.

In an ideal world, free market economics would address the needs of non-smokers and non-smoking bars would open. In an ideal world, there'd be no need for environmental restrictions because conscientious consumers would lobby against unnecessarily polluting companies and force them out of business with boycotts. My point is that laissez-faire doesn't work for a lot of social issues with such a passive public (but when there's big money and big business involved, I believe laissez-faire systems seem to be the most efficient).

In reality, this isn't the situation in the UK (I've witnessed one non-smoking bar and I know that Wetherspoon's have some smoking restrictions) when we consider about 1 in 3 people are smokers. Non-smokers are forced to compromise (and for all you smokers, being around smokers is DISGUSTING for non-smokers) as they had no-one to champion their cause before. Employees are often forced to compromise their health (not everyone can get a job within a day!).

Also from a utilitarian perspective; think about the amount of smokers that'll think twice about quitting, the amount of people that wouldn't start smoking (most people I know started smoking regularly after smoking casually while they were drunk) and the amount of money the NHS would save.

Plus, I won't be tempted by tobacco in pubs (most pubs I know serve food) anymore!

 

[tambourine-man]

^the point is...

it's fine if a private business does that on its own. then you can choose to consume that business's goods

but when it's a law, no matter what your opinion on the matter is, you're prying into how the business does its own business

Agreed - in principle.

However, how does a laissez faire approach to substance use (we'll stick with smoking for now) sit alongside a socialised Health Service that has to pick up the pieces resulting from 'smoking related diseases'? Is it possible to give autonomy and individual freedom with one hand, if on the other, we are forced to provide a collective healthcare system?

Ultimately I'm saying that it's all well and good for someone to choose to allow smoking in their establishment, and it's great that someone can choose to go in that establishment and choose to smoke. But is it so great if non-smokers have to subsidise someone else's lung cancer treatment? Where is their choice in taxation?

:::Just playing devil's advocate:::

 

[redeemer]

It's a tricky subject that's for sure...

Regardless, I still think the owner has the right to decide if he wants to let people smoke in his own restaurant.

I can see that it's irritating for non-smokers to enter a bar that allows smoking but that alone is not sufficient to pass a law banning it IMO. True, it is harming to inhale the smoke of other people but in the end it's your own choice to enter this pub where smoking is allowed.

It isn't justifiable to ban smoking in clubs just because your smoker-friends won't go to non-smoking clubs with you. You could try making campaigns emphasizing the dangers of second-hand smoke so more non-smokers would choose non-smoking clubs (and more non-smoking clubs would appear as a result).

Actually, last thursday I was at a club where smoking was banned inside, and the place was packed. I've never tried that before but I (as a smoker) of course respected it.

 

[CreativeRandom]

In theory, it should work like you say: the businesses should be free to choose whether or not to allow smoking, and the customers should be free to choose which establishment they go to. "Everybody wins".

But is this really how it is borne out in practice? How many non-smoking bars or pubs do you actually know (in places with no anti-smoking legislation)?

This theory idea is stupid. If it works in theory, it will work in practice. If it does not work in theory, it will not work in practice.

Many nonsmoking bars just have customers smoke outside.

The fact is that a great many people are unhappy with the situation at the moment, and that's why they want to change the law.

Are these "great many people" people who frequent bars, or just people who do what most people do on an average working day? Bars, alcohol, and cigarettes go together. People at bars don't care about cigarettes, only control freaks care about cigarettes at bars.

If I'm going to have to live in a nanny state, I'm happy to have this nanny law. As a libertarian, i'll leave it at that.

Point taken, but as a libertarian, aren't you afraid they will take away other rights next? Oh wait.... um. Nevermind.

In an ideal world, free market economics would address the needs of non-smokers and non-smoking bars would open

Free market economics is the ideal world, and it exists. But anyways, they do. Bars are an exception because bar goers tend to smoke. It would be similiar to making beer illegal to serve in public buildings. Many places would be fine, but bars would have quite a problem. The places that don't have such high numbers of smokers, such as restaurants, parks, anything besides bars, already have limitations on smoking set by the owners of the businesses. Smoking section, No smoking areas, leave your butts here, et cetera.

But is it so great if non-smokers have to subsidise someone else's lung cancer treatment? Where is their choice in taxation?

Excellent point. Smokers should definately get a reduction in any healthcare services they receive. Private insurance companies already do this.

Neat post redeemer.