Opinion

Lighting-up under fire

August 28, 2006 Edition 3

France - perhaps the most cigarette-friendly country in western Europe - could be about to go the way of South Africa, New York, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Scotland and ban smoking in certain indoor public places.

Health Minister Xavier Bertrand said there was now a public appetite for a ban, especially given that there have been signs of an increase in smoking, notably among the young.

Has there been a public backlash against such bans? Most people - including smokers - appear to have welcomed the bans. In New Zealand public approval is now at more than 90%. Public opinion surveys show that those in favour of bans on smoking in restaurants and bars rose from 79% in 2003 to 91% in 2005.

In Norway, a similar survey showed that public acceptance grew from 54% at the start of the ban in June 2004 to 76% in October 2005. Most Norwegians seem happy to comply with the ban and there have been few serious problems experienced with enforcement.

A survey in Scotland in April this year - a month after the ban in that country started - found that 69% of pub-goers agreed with the smoking ban and 25% said they had gone to the pub more often since it came into effect - compared to 20% who said they had gone less often.

In Ireland, those in favour of a smoking ban in pubs and restaurants grew from 67% before the ban came into effect to 82% after it was fully implemented.

Following Scotland's lead, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all preparing legislation to ban smoking entirely from public places such as pubs, clubs, bars, restau-rants and hotels, other than specially designated "smoking" hotel bedrooms.

Illegal

The bans are due to come into effect next year, probably on No Smoking Day on March 14.

It will be illegal to smoke in designated smoke-free premises, such as pubs and restaurants.

To be included in the ban, the premises have to be "enclosed", meaning that they have to have a ceiling or roof and windows and passageways, and be wholly enclosed on either a permanent or temporary basis.

Anyone found infringing the notice could be fined up to �200 (R2 700). Landlords or restaurateurs who fail to prevent smoking in a smoke-free place could face fines of up to �2 500 (R34 000).

What are the arguments in favour of bans? Smoke-free legislation has been shown to dramatically reduce the exposure of bar workers and waiters to second-hand smoke. In New York, for instance, a survey of 104 hospitality workers found that the average daily exposure to second-hand smoke decreased from 12.1 hours to 0.2 hours just a year after the ban came into effect - with levels of cotinine (a breakdown product of nicotine) in their saliva falling from 3.6 nanograms per millilitre to 0.8ng/ml.

Health ministers also hope that a ban in public places will make it easier for smokers to cut their intake, as well as making it less attractive to young people who might be persuaded to take up the habit.

Welcomed

A ban would also be welcomed by non-smokers who like to drink in pubs or eat in restaurants without their clothes ending up smelling like someone else's ashtray.

But what about the rights of smokers?

Smokers who wish to enjoy their tobacco with food or conversation have asked why there cannot be public places that cater for them.

People who wished to patronise smoke-free establishments could do so, and the market could provide premises for both kinds of customers.

The answer given is that the health and safety of workers who have to work in smoke-filled environments must be taken into account, wherever they work.

Is passive smoking really dangerous? Second-hand smoke has been shown to worsen the symptoms of asthma sufferers. It is also implicated in exacerbating the symptoms of cardiovascular or cerebro-vascular disease.

Some scientists equate indoor smoking pollution levels with those found near busy roads. One study found that the level of potentially dangerous particulate matter floating in the second-hand smoke of a public bar was nearly 30 times the level generated by heavy traffic.

o Is it right to ban smoking in public places?

Yes . . . because passive smoking endangers the health of employees in pubs, restaurants and bars.

Most smokers would like to stop smoking, but find it difficult to do so. A ban removes the temptation to light up.

Customers who suffer from asthma and other respiratory complaints should not be restricted in their choices of where to socialise.

No . . . There is no need to have a comprehensive ban because the market can provide smoking and smoke-free bars and restaurants

Most people do not wish to live in a "nanny state" in which citizens are discouraged from exercising personal responsibility.

The evidence of the dangers of passive smoking has been contested by some researchers. - The Independent, London

• News
• Opinion
• Editorial
• OpEd
• Columnists
• Letters
• Lifestyle
• Entertainment
• Sport