Smoking ban

Smoking bans are government prohibitions on tobacco smoking in public or quasi-public indoor areas such as offices, restaurants, hotels, or even outdoor public areas such as parks and sports stadiums. Outright bans on smoking altogether are rare, although in most jurisdictions the sale of tobacco to minors, or minors under a certain age, is prohibited. Such laws have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with legislators citing health statistics that show tobacco smoking is often fatal for the smokers and also sometimes for those subjected to passive smoking (also known as secondhand smoke). However, some countries such as Spain hardly enforce their smoking prohibitions, and continue to profit from tax on tobacco products.

Contents
1 Bans in various countries

1.1 Smoking in public places or bars/restaurants
1.2 Outdoor bans
1.3 Other bans
1.4 Other restrictions
1.5 Proposals

2 Effects
3 Opposition
4 Total ban dispute
5 See also
6 External links

Bans in various countries

Countries to introduce a comprehensive ban include:

Smoking in public places or bars/restaurants

Outdoor bans

In some places with long-established strict indoor smoking bans, many areas have begun to experiment with outdoor smoking bans in specific contexts, especially in public or government-owned spaces. Not surprisingly, the US state of California, already famous for its tough anti-smoking history, has been one of the most concentrated areas of innovative outdoor smoking policies in recent times, although it is not the only area to have outdoor-smoking bans. The advent of outdoor smoking bans has been seen as one of the final frontiers in the anti-smoking movement.

Other bans

Other restrictions

Proposals

Effects

A 1992 document from Phillip Morris, 'Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence', summarises the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11 per cent to 15 per cent less than average and quit at a rate that is 84 per cent higher than average."[3]

Opposition

In the U.S., smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued they would suffer disastrously from smoking bans, with many of them going broke. However, the experiences of Delaware, New York, California, and Florida have shown that many such businesses do survive. Still, stiff opposition to these smoking bans from smokers, bar owners, and even some non-smokers (such as libertarians), is still prevalent in these four states. Yet some operators of indoor venues are banning smoking by staff and/or customers for self-interest or commercial reasons.

In Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans, along with a minority of pub-goers. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intent of protecting others, particularly workers, from passive smoking. There was widespread opposition before the ban; however, promoters of the ban countered accusations that the ban would interfere with personal freedom by phrasing their argument in terms of workplace safety and workers' rights, rather than public health. By and large, since the ban's introduction it has become accepted, due in part to "outdoor" arrangements at many pubs (involving heated areas with shelters). It is viewed as a success by the government and much of the public, and many other European governments are considering similar legislation. Public health lobbyists in Northern Ireland have lobbied for a similar ban there also.

Total ban dispute

Recently there has been a growing desire by some anti-smoking activists and health officials to prohibit the sale and consumption of all tobacco products, regardless of where they are used. US Surgeon General Richard Carmona stirred some controversy in June 2003 when he publicly called for all tobacco products to be banned nationwide. A similar view is held by the British medical journal The Lancet, which called for a similar total ban in the UK in the December 2003 issue. In November 2004, Bhutan became the first country on earth to ban tobacco sale completely. There is a 100% import tax on tobacco products brought into the country for personal consumption.

Such a comprehensive ban in these countries would likely face considerable problems. The experience of the US prohibition of alcohol in the early 1900s shows that banning a harmful but popular product leads to widespread drug trafficking, which generates crime. Possibly more relevant is the fact that several US states have banned cigarettes in the past, yet all such bans were abandoned just as was Prohibition. Iowa banned cigarette manufacture and sales in 1897; Tennessee, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan were other states that banned cigarette sales at various times between 1897 and 1907.

A more recent anti-alcohol campaign in the USSR in 1985-1987 led to considerable public health benefits despite large scale illegal home-brewery of alcohol. Despite the potential benefits, it is argued that such a ban would violate personal freedoms, particularly if it is considered a victimless crime. The main arguments against smoking being a victimless crime are the health risks of passive smoking and increased health costs borne by all members of society. The argument for smoking being a victimless crime is that no adults are subjected to it without their consent.

The debate over whether a total ban should be implemented is still ongoing.

See also

External links

See also: Smoking ban, 16 November, 1985, 1987, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, Act of Parliament