(poposed) UK smoking ban (in pubs/restaurants)

Great Debates
1

Background (general):
The UK government proposes to ban smoking in pubs that serve food and in restaurants.

I had a bit of an argument (good-natured, naturally) tonight with my wife and my dad;
His position (lifelong non/anti-smoker) is that nobody should have to endure passive smoking, because it is unpleasant and injurious to health; unlike many other activities that are detrimental to the personal health of the partaker, smoking affects nearby third parties - a ban on smoking in pubs will allow non-smokers to enjoy a night out in comparative safety and comfort.

My wife’s position (lifelong non-smoker, former nurse) is that people really just shouldn’t smoke, because of the health risks and that the death or serious illness of a smoker, although the individual may have accepted the personal risks, has a seriously negative impact upon their family, friends and the local socio-economic infrastructure - a ban or restrictions on public smoking would provide an impetus to help many people give up the habit.

Both of them were in general agreement that pubs won’t suffer loss of business as a result of a smoking ban.

My position (15+ years ex-smoker):
Smoking has been an intrinsic part of pub culture for centuries - as such, it is unreasonable to expect a pub (which nobody, except perhaps the staff) is under any obligation to visit) to cater for the specific comfort demands of part of their clientelle. Whilst I personally strongly dislike tobacco smoke (remember, I’m an *ex-*smoker - worse in this respect than a non-smoker), I don’t see why my personal requirements should be enforced by rule of law.
In public places that I cannot reasonably avoid (such as public transport vehicles perhaps), I feel there is a case for stopping smoking, but if I want to avoid being exposed to smoke in a pub, I am entirely free to simply not go to the pub - avoiding it costs me nothing.

By way of (obviously flawed) analogy; suppose I claimed that not only was loud noise unpleasant to me, but that it was actually injurious to my personal health (I’m sure there must be medical conditions that are capable of being made worse by exposure to loud noises) - would I have the right to demand silent pubs?

To be perfectly honest, it feels weird to be arguing on this tack; I’m not a smoker; I really hate being exposed to a lot of tobacco smoke and yet… I think this move by the government is incredibly heavy-handed.

[sub]NB: this really isn’t supposed to be a ‘help me win this argument’ or ‘prove me right’ thread; I mention these arguments only to get the discussion rolling - in the end, no punches were thrown, nobody was browbeaten and I think everybody saw everybopdy else’s POV, even though nobody changed their position really)[/sub]

2

This law already exists in New York and the results have been mixed. Many businesses have said it has reduced their earnings (bars seem to have been hit worse than restuarants). In my personal opinion (I’m a non-smoker) it’s a bad law; I think one person’s right to smoke is greater than another person’s right to have a smoke-free building.

3

As a reformed smoker (5 and a half years), I second the OP. Restaurants, OK, but with pubs/clubs/bars its like if you don’t like Mickey Mouse, don’t go to Disneyland.

4

On that basis, are you comfortable with a ban on smoking in cinemas and theatres? If you are, how do you distinguish between cinemas and theatres on the one hand, and pubs on the other?

(Oh, and yes, there is a cost to your not going to the pub. It’s not a cost that we normally quantify in monetary terms, but it’s a real cost nevertheless. You have to forego the particular kind of conviviality which is associated with pubs.)

5

I can’t imagine being allowed to smoke in a theater in the USA (except a drive-in). Can’t believe that they still allow that in Austrailia.

6

I guess my point is … What is your point? They are totally different venues.

7

These laws are about one thing- workers. People working in bars arn’t just around the couple of cigarettes you smoke. They are around dozens of them all day. We have regulations regarding the degree of hazardous chemicals people in the workplace are allowed to be exposed to- even if you choose to work in a nuclear power plant, they still can’t expose you to dangerous levels of radiation without protection. Nobody has a choice to work in an excessively hazardous workplace and nobody has the choice to run one. Bar workers should be afforded the same protection.

As someone in a non-smoking state, I’ll tell you that it really isn’t that big of a deal. The smokers congregate outside, the rest of us are able to dance/talk/exist a bit easier and the people that work there don’t have to worry about losing their lungs to their jobs.

8

It’s been years since people have been allowed to smoke in theatres or cinemas in Australia.

9

They don’t. That’s my point. Cinemas and theatres have been smoke-free for years. This is completely uncontroversial. Any suggestion that people should be allowed to smoke in cinemas would be met with (among other objections) the objection that this would interfere with the amenity of people who want to go to the cinema in order to see a film.

How are pubs different? If I go to a pub, it’s to have a drink or two in convivial company. The amenity value is degraded if the pub is smoke-filled.

So if it’s OK to ban smoking in cinemas, what’s the problem with pubs?

10

As someone from the same state, I’ll second that.

I’m not a big fan of government regulation like this, but when it’s done a large scale it tends to not affect business much, if at all. I would object to a city-only ban, as folks definitely would just go to the next town over. Since the ban in CA is state-wide, there are very few places where you can just head to the next town to find a smoking bar.

Of course, the percent of the population in CA who smoke is, I’m sure, much less than in the UK. I’d be surprised if it was even 20% here, although it’s probably higher if you consider only people who go to bars frequently.

11

No cite, but I’ve read that over 30% of Brits smoke. In addition to this, the pub-going culture is absolutely pervasive, compared to the US and even Australia. For many, it’s their main social venue and quasi-community centre.

I have mixed feelings on any proposed ban:

(1) As a non-smoker, I’d like to be able to go to a pub without coming out with stinking clothes, but

(2) If there is a demand for smoke-free pubs, why hasn’t the market responded?. and

(3) Why shouldn’t pub-owners be allowed to run their businesses as smoking venue; both customers and employers are aware of the hazardous environment and consent to the dangers of entering it?

However:

(4) The UK has a nationalised health service. Should not the government take reasonable steps to reduce the cost of smoking-related diseases to the service? (This is possibly offset by the fact that smokers die earlier than non-smokers, thus saving the system money).

12

I suppose from the POV of the smoker, the amenity value is degraded if they are not permitted to have a drink or two and a smoke at the same time; people go to theatres/cinemas to watch a show/film - people go to a pub to have a drink and in many cases a smoke - the smoking is actually an intrinsic part of the experience for many people, rather than just something they coincidentally do while they are there.

13

I should just point out that ‘UK’ for these purposes only means Wales and England - Scotland and Northern Ireland are under different jurisdiction.

That’s certainly how it’s been implemented in Ireland. But the British government seems to be presenting it differently - there’s a more wooly approach to the reason for the ban.

14

I guess not, but if you were to take your own stereo system to a pub and treat the clientele to the music of your choice at an annoying volume, you would be regarded as obnoxious. You would probably draw complaints even with a kids’ bubble blower. The only reason smoking is tolerated is its historical acceptance, and I’m afraid that’s not a strong argument to let it continue.

I regard smoking as obnoxious. I don’t care about the health risks to the smokers and I’m far from convinced about the risks of secondary smoke - I just think that deliberately creating poor-smelling smoke in an enclosed public place is an obnoxious and selfish thing to do. Sometimes I’m tempted to try the same thing with burning strips of rubber tyre.

Laws regarding nuisance behaviour are always about striking a balance - you shouldn’t be able to keep your neighbours awake all night every night with excessive noise, but your neighbours shouldn’t be able to prohibit you from having a party now and again. Careful judgement required in every case. I’m personally too biased to be able to render such a careful judgement - I’m glad that a ban is coming.

15

Interesting that you thought I was talking about music; in fact, what I had in mind was the clamour of all those people flapping their mouths - surely they don’t have to talk, do they? - or can’t they go outside to do it?

Almost, but not quite; I am of the opinion that smoking is as much an inclusive part of pub culture as drinking; certainly it can be unpleasant for third parties in a way that drinking is not; I understand that as much as anyone (don’t forget I’m a non-smoker who really doesn’t like smoke), but banning smoking in pubs is redefining the concept of ‘pub’ - expecting a smoker to refrain from smoking in a pub is somewhat akin to asking a drinker to stop drinking (as I said, obvious third party effects notwithstanding - I’m talking about the personal impact).

Is a pub actually a public place? A library would be, as would a train station, but a pub is a private establishment, isn’t it?

16

I thought a pub by it’s definition is a public house - there’s no membership requirements, anyone can walk in…
IMO (10yr+ smoker) I think the law needs to phased in over a few years. First, restaurants and anywhere else food is served. Absolutely agree. Force pubs to have a non-smoking area (some already do with varying levels of success). Make sure these have good ventilation. Then do the full ban. I hope that it’ll help me to quit as I patently don’t have the balls to do it myself.

17

Again, it’s a matter of balance. If you and your mates choose to treat a quiet pub to a rousing chorus of The Good Ship Venus, you can indeed be encouraged to take that outside. If you and your mates enter a pub where everybody is already singing the Good Ship Venus, and you unplug the jukebox so you can have a quiet pint, you can take that attitude outside as well.

I guess you can sling that one right back at me with examples of smoke-filled and non smoke-filled pubs. You could claim it’s out of order for a non-smoker to enter a smoke-filled pub and expect everyone to stop smoking, and you’d have a point. But at the moment, smokers don’t seem to have any problem at all about entering a smoke-free pub (something of a rarity in any event!) and lighting up.

Give and take on the issue from both sides would be nice but there’s an imbalance of power here - I can’t take an “anti-cigarette” out and magically create a bubble of smoke-free air, nearby cigarettes suddenly burning smokelessly, to the chagrin of their owners. A smoker can do the opposite to non-smokers and it’s just accepted that they have the right to do so.

I don’t really want to get into culture, some people feel soccer violence was a matter of culture. We have already re-defined what a pub actually is several times over and no doubt will do so again in the future.

Your point about whether a pub is a public place is a good one - in principle they are not, and proprietors should have the right to decide whether their establishment is smoking, non-smoking or partitioned, right? Except partitioned establishments are a joke, hermetic sealing being absent. While smokers can generally drag their non-smoking friends to a smoking establishment, the opposite simply isn’t the case - it is an addiction after all. So non-smoking pubs lose business compared to smoking pubs, so there are no proprietor-chosen, non-smoking pubs.

This is really all hair splitting. What it comes down to is whose rights contravene whose, and I’m afraid I’m not broadminded enough not to take my own side in an argument.

18

Well, there are, but they’re miniscule in number, and they generally target the non-smoking well-to-do middle class who want a decent meal. This only works for individual cases because they’re in such a minority.

Anyway, back to the main point…I fully support the ban, purely on the grounds of workers’ health.

19

At least one pub in Sydney attempted this some years ago. The publican felt that there was such a strong push for smokefree environments that he would segregate his smokers and provide one entirely smokefree bar. After much initial lauding of the idea and a couple of weeks of good crowds it turned out that there were more staff than customers in the bar. Even the non-smoking regulars wouldn’t drink there - they drank in the bar where all the smokers were. I think the experiment despite much publicity lasted 3 months.

20

Just to present you with an opposing view:

Bear in mind that a pub is the property of its owner. He or she can (with exceptions) set rules as to conduct within the premises; these are the conditions of entering and remaining in the pub.

At present, nearly all pub owners have decided to allow smoking within their property. They do not, however, usually permit invitees to bring their own music or bubble blowers. They would be within their legal rights to refuse entry to people who do so.

What the proposed laws will do is further strip property owners of their rights to regulate behaviour on their premises. While at present they are free to agree to conditions of entry with their customers (i.e. “this place is non-smoking” or “this place allows smokers”), the law will take away owners’ ability to control smoking on their property.

Bars are not public property. Bar owners should be allowed to regulate behaviour on their private land.

The difference with the tort of nuisance (and statutes which regulate public nuisance) is that it deals with competing usages of property. E.g. Neighbour 1 wants to use his property in a particular way, which affects Neighbour 2’s enjoyment of her property rights.

This is a completely different situation to pubs. There are no competing legal rights. The public does not have a right to enter whichever pub they chose. OTOH, The pub owner can set (with certain restrictions such as anti-discrimination laws) the terms and conditions of entry. If the public does not agree to these terms–such as “we allow smoking”–they are free to go someplace else. No one has no right to insist they should be allowed entry to an private premises, or to dictate the terms of entry–such as “there shall be no smoking!”–to a property owner. Nuisance is a poor analogy.

Anyway, that’s the opposing argument. I don’t wholly agree with it. However, I acknowledge there’s a strong libertarian argument to be made, which says we should leave property owners to control their own premises without government interference.