Are local smoking bans set to become a reality?

Last week, we posted the news of New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's decision to introduce a ban on smoking in all public places - not just indoors in places such as restaurants, offices and bars, but on the streets and in public parks too.

Given Mayor Bloomberg's used local powers to introduce such a ban, BBW's attention was drawn to an exchange between Steve Baker MP and Health Minister Anne Milton in the House of Commons in October.

Steve Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the exercise by local authorities of powers restricting smoking in public places.

Anne Milton: Local councils exercise power to restrict smoking in public places in accordance with the guidance for council regulatory officers-'Implementation of smokefree legislation in England', which was compiled by local government regulation (formerly LACORS), the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and the Trading Standards Institute. The evidence indicates that the exercise of these powers has been particularly successful in achieving the objectives of the legislation, compliance with the regulations and the protection of people from the harm done by second-hand tobacco smoke, with minimal burden on businesses. During 2006 and early 2007 the Department funded training for local authority officers and for businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, to assist with the smooth implementation of the regulations. The training carried out by the CIEH was widely recognised at the time as making a significant contribution to the successful implementation of the smokefree law.

With the coaliton commited to a radical agenda of localised decision-making, is it too soon to suspect that local councils in the UK may attempt to implement New York-style outdoor smoking bans in the future?  Anne Milton's above answer seems to suggest they have the power to do so.

This week, the Bath Chronicle asks exactly that question.  What do you think?

Comments

[harleyrider1978]

I think the whole anti-tobacco agenda is fixing to fall apart at the seams. Mayor bloomberg has been attacked by all the major news papers in new york over this outdoor ban and now even the second hand smoke science is being looked at for the junk science it is.Theres a point when a moral agenda finally over steps its bounds and the outdoor bans is it.And will be the death nell of the indoor bans!

[Richard Craven]

I agree. I'm in favour of prohibiting smoking in covered public areas, but this goes too far. The inconvenience to non-smokers from open-air smoking is minimal.

[Carlos]

I hope you are right Harley.

[alastair]

@Richard: It depends where the person doing the "open-air smoking" happens to be standing and which way the wind is blowing.

Smokers typically give this kind of thing very little thought, and many non-smokers’ experience of asking them to pay it some attention has not, historically, been great (typically involving hand gestures and/or swearing). Of course, not every smoker reacts this way, but it’s easier to remember bad experiences rather than good ones.

[Richard Craven]

@Alastair

I agree, it can be unpleasant to find oneself in the vicinity of a smoker, even in the open. Moreover, you're quite right that some smokers simply will not consider the impact on others of their behaviour, and indeed react rudely to even the politest of remonstrations.

Nevertheless, I stand by my original point. In general, the inconvenience to non-smokers from open-air smoking is far less than that from smoking in enclosed spaces. As such, I really don't think it ought to be the subject of legislative intervention.

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmEJOuWf8_9jd0rXh29vlDOmvlGsU7O15E]

The anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
http://www.smokershistory.com/SGHDlies.html

And, all their so-called "independent" reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he's now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That's how they make their reports "unanimous!"

http://www.smokershistory.com/SGlies.html

For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

[Richard Craven]

Nevertheless, you yourself have to accept that most real scientists accept that smoking is very very bad for health.

Moreover, you wrote this:-
"For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats."

You can't get away with this.

Firstly, You have argued that the government's anti-smoking legislation is based on bad science. Bad science is not the same thing as fraud. If you think that the government has defrauded smokers, then say why.

Secondly, to describe the government's enactions against smokers as a serious human rights violation comparable with imprisoning the innocent is just hyperbole. Similarly, the government spreading what you consider to be lies about phony smoking dangers is NOT terrorism.

By all means argue that your human rights are being violated; but for god's sake keep a sense of proportion. In short, don't be silly. Surely you want to be taken seriously.