Smoking in Pubs
The administrations in Dublin and New York have recently moved to ban smoking in all public areas. This, allied to considerable pressure from within the health lobby, could soon be the same fate in Britain. As I have mentioned before, I am a health and Safety professional, so it would seem natural for me to support such a ban "for the good of the people". However, where does this leave the rights of the "people" (see a previous entry) themselves. The health profession and the government (Westminster and increasingly Brussels) are increasingly interfering in our daily lives, seemingly hell-bent on engineering society to their image of what is expected.
Opinions will change over time: after a long period of education, the paying public is less likely to accept foods which are high in fat or salt, and demands more choice and healthier options. The same should be true of smoking. There can be very few people in the country who do not realise that smoking is bad for them and for those around them. Despite some research carried out on behalf of the tobacco companies which found no links to some cancers, I believe that passive smoking is likely to be unhealthy. Even if it is not unhealthy, it is unpleasant: I have never smoked anything (legal or not) in my life. I do not like the smell of stale smoke in my hair and clothes after an evening in in a smoky atmosphere. However, this does not give me a right to ban smoking altogether except in the privacy of smokers' homes.
Regulation and interference is not an answer (unlike the regulation of fireworks covered in another entry), otherwise we would move towards a Singapore-like regime where large numbers of innocuous activities become crimes and our lives would be dictated by the state. I accept that while everyone has a choice whether or not to enter a smoky pub or restaurant, this does limit personal freedoms. Banning smoking would be far more destructive of public freedoms. A lot of people enjoy smoking, despite the health risks (of which smokers are very aware). Why should they be limited as to what they can do in public?
The better solution is surely to improve air cleaning technologies, improve the segregation of smokers as in restaurants and allow individual pubs to decide if they want to ban smoking. That way, choice remains for smokers and non-smokers, and the environment becomes healthier for all without curtailing essential freedoms.
Opinions will change over time: after a long period of education, the paying public is less likely to accept foods which are high in fat or salt, and demands more choice and healthier options. The same should be true of smoking. There can be very few people in the country who do not realise that smoking is bad for them and for those around them. Despite some research carried out on behalf of the tobacco companies which found no links to some cancers, I believe that passive smoking is likely to be unhealthy. Even if it is not unhealthy, it is unpleasant: I have never smoked anything (legal or not) in my life. I do not like the smell of stale smoke in my hair and clothes after an evening in in a smoky atmosphere. However, this does not give me a right to ban smoking altogether except in the privacy of smokers' homes.
Regulation and interference is not an answer (unlike the regulation of fireworks covered in another entry), otherwise we would move towards a Singapore-like regime where large numbers of innocuous activities become crimes and our lives would be dictated by the state. I accept that while everyone has a choice whether or not to enter a smoky pub or restaurant, this does limit personal freedoms. Banning smoking would be far more destructive of public freedoms. A lot of people enjoy smoking, despite the health risks (of which smokers are very aware). Why should they be limited as to what they can do in public?
The better solution is surely to improve air cleaning technologies, improve the segregation of smokers as in restaurants and allow individual pubs to decide if they want to ban smoking. That way, choice remains for smokers and non-smokers, and the environment becomes healthier for all without curtailing essential freedoms.
posted by Jonathan | Sunday, June 13, 2004
2 Comments:
Some people would argue that the measures you suggest wouldn't be enough cos banning smoking would make fewer people smoke. However that ain't the case. In some US states smoking's been banned in bars for years and people probably smoke as much or more in the States as elsewhere, it's just that they have to huddle out on the street or in a special room to do it. If the idea is to protect people from second hand smoke there must be better ways of doing it that don't amount to a big shift in the way people live their lives.
My thoughts precisely. Banning marijuana hardly stops being smoking it, it just criminalises people and causes them health problems through lack of regulated, quality controlled supply, exposure to criminal elements, smoking drugs in unhealthy environments.
What happens to the rights of the smoker not to catch chills, colds, etc, from huddling in freezing doorways to enjoy a legal pastime.
Post a Comment
<< Home