>>Tim Lord, chief executive of the tobacco manufacturers association, argues against a smoking ban
About 30% of people over the age of 16 are regular smokers, mostly of cigarettes. Some would have us believe that the 70% who are non-smokers are so intolerant and opposed to smoking that they want smoking in public places to be made a criminal offence and, in particular, for smoking to be outlawed in all pubs, bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels and the like. To that end, they have tried to use polls to prove their case, generally by asking a question designed to provide the answer they want.
Polls that use nationally representative survey and standard sampling techniques, and which offer people choices in their response, have painted a very different picture. That was the case with the polls undertaken by Populus, on behalf of Forest.
Now, the argument about polls should stop. The Office of National Statistics has undertaken its own research and published the results last week in its survey ‘Smoking-related behaviour and attitudes, 2003’.
The results are almost identical to those of the Populus polls: 20% thought smoking should be banned in pubs; 51% thought that pubs should be mainly non-smoking but have smoking areas, against 19% that thought they should be mainly smoking with non-smoking areas set aside; 8% believed that smoking should be permitted throughout; and 2% did not know or did not go to pubs.
In other words, 78% of those quizzed thought smoking in pubs should be allowed.
That is no mandate for a ban. And the creation of yet another series of criminal offences and commitment to the inevitable substantial costs of enforcement would effectively fall on the council tax, whether a ban was applied nationally or decided locally by individual local authorities.
The idea that there might be political popularity in banning smoking at work or in public places may be a factor contributing to the suggestion that a ban might be included in the government’s next election manifesto. However, particularly given the findings of the ONS, that would obviously be to misread what the public wants.
Of course, there should be a greater provision of non-smoking areas to reflect the fact that smokers are now a minority in the population, albeit a substantial minority. That is precisely what the hospitality sector has been steadily achieving.
People want the freedom to choose and
voluntary self-regulation is achieving what people want.
For example, in 2002, 50% of people reported their workplace as one in which smoking was banned; 36% worked in places where smoking was permitted only in designated areas; 5% worked alone.
Smoking is also banned or regulated in many public places - government and local government buildings, airport, rail and bus terminals, on public transport, in shops, supermarkets, shopping malls and the like.
There is not only no need for prohibition and the creation of criminal offences, the evidence on environmental tobacco smoke does not demonstrate an adverse health effect for non-smokers.
And, as the Health and Safety Commission concluded in 1999, neither
does it provide adequate evidence to justify a ban or prescriptive regulations.
One of the main planks in the argument of the anti-smokers is that bans would stop smokers smoking and discourage others from taking up smoking. Again, there is no reliable or conclusive evidence that this would be the case. Bans do not stop smoking; all they do is change the pattern of smokers’ behaviour.
Embedded deep in Britain’s history there is a liberal tradition that puts the importance of an individual’s autonomy and dignity front centre stage. Invasions of personal freedom, from whatever quarter they come, are generally tolerated and respected only when there are overriding justifications.
There are no such justifications for legislation prohibiting smoking.
About 30% of people over the age of 16 are regular smokers, mostly of cigarettes. Some would have us believe that the 70% who are non-smokers are so intolerant and opposed to smoking that they want smoking in public places to be made a criminal offence and, in particular, for smoking to be outlawed in all pubs, bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels and the like. To that end, they have tried to use polls to prove their case, generally by asking a question designed to provide the answer they want.
Polls that use nationally representative survey and standard sampling techniques, and which offer people choices in their response, have painted a very different picture. That was the case with the polls undertaken by Populus, on behalf of Forest.
Now, the argument about polls should stop. The Office of National Statistics has undertaken its own research and published the results last week in its survey ‘Smoking-related behaviour and attitudes, 2003’.
The results are almost identical to those of the Populus polls: 20% thought smoking should be banned in pubs; 51% thought that pubs should be mainly non-smoking but have smoking areas, against 19% that thought they should be mainly smoking with non-smoking areas set aside; 8% believed that smoking should be permitted throughout; and 2% did not know or did not go to pubs.
In other words, 78% of those quizzed thought smoking in pubs should be allowed.
That is no mandate for a ban. And the creation of yet another series of criminal offences and commitment to the inevitable substantial costs of enforcement would effectively fall on the council tax, whether a ban was applied nationally or decided locally by individual local authorities.
The idea that there might be political popularity in banning smoking at work or in public places may be a factor contributing to the suggestion that a ban might be included in the government’s next election manifesto. However, particularly given the findings of the ONS, that would obviously be to misread what the public wants.
Of course, there should be a greater provision of non-smoking areas to reflect the fact that smokers are now a minority in the population, albeit a substantial minority. That is precisely what the hospitality sector has been steadily achieving.
People want the freedom to choose and
voluntary self-regulation is achieving what people want.
For example, in 2002, 50% of people reported their workplace as one in which smoking was banned; 36% worked in places where smoking was permitted only in designated areas; 5% worked alone.
Smoking is also banned or regulated in many public places - government and local government buildings, airport, rail and bus terminals, on public transport, in shops, supermarkets, shopping malls and the like.
There is not only no need for prohibition and the creation of criminal offences, the evidence on environmental tobacco smoke does not demonstrate an adverse health effect for non-smokers.
And, as the Health and Safety Commission concluded in 1999, neither
does it provide adequate evidence to justify a ban or prescriptive regulations.
One of the main planks in the argument of the anti-smokers is that bans would stop smokers smoking and discourage others from taking up smoking. Again, there is no reliable or conclusive evidence that this would be the case. Bans do not stop smoking; all they do is change the pattern of smokers’ behaviour.
Embedded deep in Britain’s history there is a liberal tradition that puts the importance of an individual’s autonomy and dignity front centre stage. Invasions of personal freedom, from whatever quarter they come, are generally tolerated and respected only when there are overriding justifications.
There are no such justifications for legislation prohibiting smoking.
No comments yet