Light(en) up. (Should smoking be banned in public places?)

Name: MagdaDH

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Should smoking be banned in public places?
Date:	01/02/06 (1680 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: keeps many non-smokers happy, arguably cuts the consumption of smokers

Disadvantages: health risks are overblown and regulatory intervention in lifestyles is very suspicious

Most proponents of the ban on smoking in public places start with (or at least use) an argument referring to the harmful effects of passive smoking on people other than the smoker.

I have to, thus, start with the following caveat: I don't believe that there is enough reliable research evidence as to lethal effects of passive smoking. Whilst a strong, though by no means 100% causal, connection has been well documented between 'active' smoking and lung cancer, the evidence for significant or noticeable negative effects of passive smoking is thin; and that is despite desperate attempts to stretch studies and their results far enough to provide such evidence. Even if we assume that the risk factors are correct, they are, firstly, rather small (risk factors around 1.2-1.4 seem to appear most often in literature) and secondly, strongly related to actually living with a smoker. I have not been able to find a reliably looking study that showed risk factors for people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at work but not at home.

That is why my argument starts with the premise that passive smoking is not a life-or-death issue. In my argument smoking is treated as unpleasant, annoying or filthy habit that affects people around smoker in a disagreeable way. A lot of non-smokers don't like staying in smoky rooms; for various reasons: some get a headache, others hate the way clothes smell after spending an evening in a smoky room, others still dislike the smell of cigarettes or cigars while they are being smoked. To be honest, it is probable that even many smokers don't particularly like such atmosphere.

And by the way, I don't believe that the fact that smoking can be dangerous to smoker's health comes into question here. I am rather worried by wider political implications of government and regulatory intervention into lifestyle habits of people on (often very flimsy) grounds of health and safety. I don't think that legal regulations should try to save me from myself, thank you very much. It's not a place to dwell deeper into this subject but there must be a clear line between keeping people informed so they can make their own decision (equivalent to putting up a sign "swimming here is extremely dangerous") and trying to make such decisions for them (equivalent to putting up a sign that declares "swimming forbidden" in exactly the same circumstances). The latter can insidiously change from banning obvious hazards to possible hazards to things that are just unsavoury to anything deemed not-right for whatever reason (spurious and half-spurious health claims seem to be a favourite nowadays) by those in authority.

Coming back to passive smoking, then; on one side we have a right of a non-smoker not to suffer inconvenience and unpleasantness of tobacco smoke. On the other we have a right of a smoker to use his drug of choice, which so far remains legal.

I do believe that both these rights need to be given consideration. Just because we deem something wrong or inherently misguided or because something is unhealthy doesn't mean we should be going round making the activity in question illegal. On the other hand, just because something is legal doesn't mean it needs to be allowed everywhere and at all times. This calls for a discussion of the specific cases.

I think smoking by personnel should be banned in places of work, but I also think that special smoking areas should be designated inside or outside the building so people who want a cigarette should be able to have one without walking a mile away from the office and hiding. And yes, I think it should also apply to schools and hospitals.

I think smoking should be also banned in places where people go with a definite purpose in order to buy something, obtain a service etc. These include shops, banks, doctors' surgeries, hairdressers, inquiry offices as well as town buses and trams and short haul flights. The inconvenience for a smoker is minimal, while a lot of non-smokers are kept happy.

The third category of places are enclosed places of entertainment and travel where people do spend more time but where cigarettes could be construed as a fire hazard: cinemas, concert halls, museums, underground trains and stations. Long-distance coaches are problematic because it's difficult to separate smokers and non-smokers and thus giving smokers a right to their fix would inconvenience the non-smokers. I would suggest a stretch-legs and/or fag breaks (and this seems a policy that usually applies nowadays). Long-haul flights are perhaps the biggest point of contention here. I could imagine simply having smoking/non-smoking flights or alternatively having a separate, well ventilated section of the aircraft: I personally have never been on a smoking flight as I never flew long haul and short haul flights were all non smoking in my time. Overall though long-haul flying is not something many people do on a very frequent basis and I would think smokers could bow down and survive with help of Nicorette if needs be. I do think, though, that so called air-rage incidents must have at least in some cases something to do with allowing people lots of booze while banning them from a cigarette.
I think that total ban on smoking on many (even uncovered) rail platforms and in some airports is completely unjustified by any arguments of inconveniencing non-smokers.

The fourth group of places are what most of the arguments are now about: clubs, pubs and restaurants. I do believe that cigarettes are very much a part of going-out script for many people and integral element in the process of getting generally wasted (drunk, stoned, high, deafened by loud music, laid) that comprises a good night out (OK, not any more for me but I have fond memories). Clubs and pubs should decide for themselves if they are going to ban or partially ban smoking: there is absolutely no compulsion of visiting these places and I really do think that people should be allowed to vote with their feet: those who are concerned about smoking will simply stay out of a smoking venue. I know that there is concern about effects of passive smoking on staff employed in such establishments, but if the link between passive smoking and long-term health risks is ever conclusively proven, smoking pubs and clubs could be treated as 'hazardous areas' and non-smokers employed in such would be paid more, a bit like workers with hazardous or radioactive chemicals are I believe.

Restaurants are a harder case in my opinion as tobacco and food are not nowadays culturally linked as closely as tobacco and booze for example. I would suggest smoking and non-smoking rooms where possible while if not a choice left to the restaurant (smoking or non-smoking).

PS. For those interested in my personal relation to smoking; I don't smoke now, until 2 years ago I used to smoke daily for about 15 years, I come from a non-smoking family but all the guests were allowed to smoke inside unless there was a baby in the room.

Summary: people don't need saving from themselves; but non-smokers' rights should be respected where possible