Lansley and Cameron differ on smoking ban

John Reid and David Cameron will vote against a total ban on smoking in all pubs.

Patricia Hewitt and Andrew Lansley will likely be amongst a majority of MPs who vote for a full ban.

Votes from the Liberal (?) Democrats in favour of a ban will likely ensure that it is carried.

Andrew Lansley, Shadow Health Secretary, told The Times: “We now look forward to debating this issue freely in Parliament, and to a workable, fair and effective outcome which protects children, staff and the public from the clear dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke.”

Comments

[Mike Christie]

I must admit to being really torn on this issue. As a non-smoker I quite like the idea of being able to go to any pub or restaurant and not have my experience spoiled by smoke.

Firstly, I don't like the definition of the term 'public' used by the government. Is my local pub a public place? I would say it was a private place to which members of the public are granted limited rights of access by the owner. 'The management reserve the right to refuse entry to any person etc.'

If the owners are happy to allow smoking then that is their business. As for protecting staff, lets bring back a little personal responsibility here, if you don't like smoke, or are worried about the effects of second-hand smoke don't get a job in a smokey pub then whine about it afterwards, go and work in a non-smoking environment or find a better ventilated bar to work in.

Here we have just one more law that will either be widely flouted or quietly detested for stopping decent law-abiding people doing something they've always done. This decreases respect for the law generally. Also it will no doubt require the waste of more police time and/or more clipboard weilding drains on the nation's wealth to enforce.

[a-tracy]

I'm unsure how I feel about this one too, I'm sure the 'clunk click' seatbelt legislation wasn't popular when it was debated but how many lives does it save?

Is anyone else surprised just how many people smoke in Celebrity Big Brother or how frequently especially the younger members! These anti-smoking adverts don't appear to be working do they? (BB raises great debates at work e.g. Is Jodie Marsh a victim? If there was a smoking ban would people be able to smoke in a living environment like BB?)

[Mark Fulford]

I smoked from when I was 14 to 28, acquiring most of the habit in coffee shops and pubs (yes, 25 years ago we were drinking at 14). I am certain that a full ban will reduce the number of new smokers and, in my book, that is sufficient justification.

[wasp]

It will certainly reduce the number of social smokers, student smokers etc.

However that is not the justification that has been put forward by Hewitt. She has repeatedly said it is about protecting the health of workers. In which case lets have licensing associated with high standards of ventilation and a democratic vote of employees.

I also believe people should be able to go somewhere "public" to smoke, otherwise it will be driven more into the home where it does more damadge and where children are most likely to the the recipients of passive smoking.

[Mark Fulford]

Yes, Hewitt has come to the right decision for the wrong reasons - which is unusual for her.

[Richard]

The smoking of tobacco is something that is perfectly legal and those who smoke generate vast sums of money for the Treasury.

While the government is perfectly entitled to inform us of the dangers of smoking, junk food etc they are not entitled to ban smoking anywhere other than on government property.

If I as an informed individual wish to smoke then that is my choice. If my local pub landlord wishes to have smoking in his pub that is also his choice just as it is the choice of my employer if he wishes to allow people to smoke in our office.

People need to start taking some personal responsibility here. If you don't want to work in an environment where people smoke then get a job elsewhere! If you don't like drinking in a smoky environment go to a smoke free pub!

If a landlord feels it is in the interests of his business to go smoke free then he will. Let the market decide not the government. There are many things that I don’t like but I tolerate them and I wouldn’t want to see the government banning them.

Those on this site who attacked Cameron over his chocolate orange comments can’t now start supporting government policy to force private businesses against their wishes to ban smoking in their premises.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

I topo dont like smoke - and ahev never smoked - and as a child had bad asthma. Not smoking clearly has benefist for yoru health.

My worry is that many of the people who may have a fag or too in a pub are more likely to smoke more at home in front of their children.

[Mike Christie]

"My worry is that many of the people who may have a fag or too in a pub are more likely to smoke more at home in front of their children."

My worry, as expressed by someone above too, is that people who do smoke will now be unable to do so in the pub and will smoke more at home. Surely smoking in a building full of consenting adults is more morally justifiable than smoking where kids have no choice but to be.

[Mark Fulford]

"If I as an informed individual wish to smoke then that is my choice."

Smoking isn't your choice, it's the choice an addiction. If smoking was your choice then you wouldn't spend a fortune on bad breath, smelly clothes, ruined fitness, long-term painful health problems, dulled senses - to say nothing of harming everyone around you.

But because so many of my friends are either social or professional smokers, I have the choice of never going to a pub socially or of putting up with the smoke. The choice between smoking and clean-air pubs is fantasy.

[Selsdon Man]

Oh dear, this debate reflects the lack of intellectual rigour in the party.

Pubs, bars and restaurants are not public places, they are private, i.e. owned by private individuals or shareholders. Mr Lansley has joined the ranks of the statists who believe that government should tell people how to run their lives and businesses.

There should be no free vote on this issue. A principled party would apply the 3 line vote to vote against this bill and protect individual liberty.

[Selsdon Man]

Sorry, typo - I meant 3 line whip.

[BB]

The proposal to deprive people of their right to smoke is pure anti-libertarian socialism.

Lansley is a PC socialist. He's proved that before with his advocacy of positive discrimination and deserves to be dumped.

[Ed R]

As I strongly believe in personal freedoms, I defend vigorously the right of people to breathe unpolluted air that won't irritate asthma, stick in their throats and clothes and possibly damage their health. The sooner the ban is implemented the better.

[BB]

You and how many other anti-libertarian socialists?

[Mike Christie]

"I'm sure the 'clunk click' seatbelt legislation wasn't popular when it was debated but how many lives does it save?"

I suppose the diffence is that wearing a seatbelt is a relatively simple measure that doesn't really have an impact on one's freedom to enjoy life but improves your survival chances instantly and drastically.

I don't see the harm in compelling people to take simple precautions to avoid being a danger to themselves, others, and an unneccessary burden on the NHS. Seat-belt and crash-helmet legislation seem perfectly reasonable to me.

One of my big concerns is enforcement of this ridiculous law.

Will the few remaining bobbies on the beat be ordered to divert into pubs to check for smokers?

Will patrons be encouraged to become informants and shop landlords who turn a blind eye to the 90yr old bloke who's been coming in for a pipe and a pint since before most of our MPs were born?

Will local councils be expected to monitor this along with their licencing duties in yet another burden on local government to push up council tax?

[Mike Christie]

"As I strongly believe in personal freedoms, I defend vigorously the right of people to breathe unpolluted air that won't irritate asthma, stick in their throats and clothes and possibly damage their health. The sooner the ban is implemented the better."

Couldn't that argument also be used to ban cars?

[BB]

Couldn't that argument also be used to ban cars?

ROFLMAO!!!!

The anti-liberals here are collapsing under their own multifarious contradictions.

[Mark Fulford]

"Oh dear, this debate reflects the lack of intellectual rigour in the party."

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dearie me, it appears that vascular damage may already be restricting blood flow to the brain.

On neither private nor public property should you have the right to harm another person without that person's explicit consent.

"Couldn't that argument also be used to ban cars?"

We could certainly apply the libertarian argument to cars:

On motorways there should be no speed limits. If drivers are unhappy with the increased danger, they can move to A roads. The extra cost of accidents is more than covered because faster driving consumes more fuel and therefore pays greater taxes. And by allowing people to drive fast on motorways, they’ll slow down outside schools.

[Chris Palmer]

I hate smoking. It is a pathetic, disgusting, foul habit for the weak of mind. Smokers damage not only their own health, but the health of other around them. However, should the Government ban smoking? One smoker smoking can infringe on another non-smokers liberty to not smoke or inhale smoke. Why should someone who does not smoke, and does not want to be infected by the habit of others, be stopped from going somewhere – a pub for example, because they don’t which to inhale 2nd hand smoke? Should smokers have the right to force smoke down others throats in a public place? (however you define public.)

Smoking habits have changed from what they were in the past. The smoker of today usually smokes as a “fashion” (if it could be called such) statement and they hate their own smoke drifting around them; tending to blow it away from their person onto others. Since cretinous smokers cannot be trusted with their own health, let alone the health of others, should the Government step in?

[Richard]

The bigger issue here is the issue of whether or not the government should be allowed to tell a private business man what he can and cannot allow on his premises. While smoking remains a perfectly legal pass time it should be left to the private business man to decide and should have nothing to do with the government.

[Mike Christie]

To be fair, it is a legitimate debate where to draw the line on personal freedom where it impacts on the personal freedom of others.

Does one person's freedom to enjoy a cigar after a meal in a restaurant supercede another's freedom to enjoy the taste of their meal without the addition of cigar smoke?

I would say that it is up to individual establishments to draw the line however, based on the preferences of their customers.

One can then make the choice, weighing up the pros and cons.

I can choose whether I put a higher value on a smoke-free environment, or whether the food in a particular restaurant is so good that I'm willing to run the risk of some cigar smoke wafting in my direction as I eat.

The blunt force of legislation is not what is required here.

A better idea would be for anti and pro smoking bodies to run schemes whereby establishments can advertise the fact that they are smoke-free or smoker friendly. Customers and potential staff can then make informed decisions about where they spend their time.

[Samuel Coates]

There's a balance here, between saving lives and preserving principles, and between "freedom from's" and "freedom to's".

[Mike Christie]

"On motorways there should be no speed limits. If drivers are unhappy with the increased danger, they can move to A roads. The extra cost of accidents is more than covered because faster driving consumes more fuel and therefore pays greater taxes. And by allowing people to drive fast on motorways, they’ll slow down outside schools"

Whilst I agree with the lifting of speed limits on motorways, I would disagree with some of the logic.

I'm not sure that the raising or abolition of speed limits would make the motorways more dangerous.

Also the idea that raising speed limits on motorways would decrease speeding in built up areas is questionable. Speeding past a school is more down to poor awareness and a lack of respect for other road users than being in a rush.

Clarkson was telling a story in a column recently of being stuck on a country road behind a driver doing 40. This driver, probably feeling smug about how safely they were driving carried on through village at 40 and got done by a speed camera, which JC found hilarious.

I have often overtaken cars on derestricted roads in perfect safety, and had the drivers flash their lights at me, tut-tutting and all the rest. It is ironic how many of these cars manage to catch me up in built up areas.

[Sean Fear]

Entering a pub is not a necessary act. One voluntarily enters a place where one can reasonably assume that other people will be smoking - so I can't really see that one has much of a reason to complain about it.

It's a bit like moving next door to a factory and then demanding it be shut down due to the noise and smell.

[a-tracy]

I don't smoke or go to smokers' pubs so from a personal point of view it doesn't affect me. I am concerned that my Mum works in a pub that allows smoking at the bar and even though she doesn't like it she's willing to put up with it to keep a job she loves.

My dad smokes and goes to the pub to smoke with his mates but he doesn't smoke at his or my home around my children and hasn't since they were born.

[BW]

I believe in the small state, in minimal laws, in leaving choice to the individual.

But, I have no qualms on this issue. The filthy habit of dragging a foul smoke into your lungs and expelling it to poison the air of those around you must be banned....

Those who say otherwise, claiming freedom and 'rights' are simply placing the freedom and rights of smokers to smoke over the rights of non-smokers to clean air.

It is an outdated filthy disgusting habit. I should not be assaulted by someone elses waste products whenever I enter a pub or eat a meal in a restaurant.

If I go for a Sunday drink with family who smoke, I am subject to their filth. If I dont go I am being unsociable - a no win situation. If smoking is banned in pubs the problem is solved, I can go with them and enjoy a drink withour fear of smelly clothes, smarting eyes or choking fumes.

Ban it now... Not 'pc', not 'socialism' but for freedom, the feedom to enjoy clean air, whether in a pub, restaurant, cafe or whatever...

[Sean Fear]

The only place you can enjoy really clean air is in a non-urban environment, which suggests that that the "right" to enjoy clean air is not a right at all.

[BW]

Sean Fear - there is a big difference to 'clean air', even in an urban area and air fouled by your filthy smoking habit.

It may 'relatively clean' air but it is still a valid argument.

Do you suggest that I should not enter a pub, it being a 'voluntary act', because of other people's smoke. In saying that you are saying that smokers deserve more freedom than I do...

Come off it...

[Mike Christie]

"Do you suggest that I should not enter a pub, it being a 'voluntary act', because of other people's smoke. In saying that you are saying that smokers deserve more freedom than I do..."

Some pubs are smokey, some aren't, some play loud music, others are quiet, some are populated entirely by old men playing dominoes, some are full of students.

You have the freedom to find one that suits you.

[Mark Fulford]

As a matter of interest, am I right in my suspicion that those here who are most pro-smoking are simultaneously most anti-drugs?

If we're into libertarian choices, why don't we allow cocaine to be consumed in pubs?

[Goldie]

Smoking of tobacco is medieval. The health effects are so devastating that is a miracle that it is still even allowed. Obviously a ban is an excellent idea, so it is good to see that Mr. Cameron's instincts here as everywhere are reactionary and old-fashioned. He really is stuck in time, circa May 1997. Nothing modern about him.

[Chris Palmer]

"It's a bit like moving next door to a factory and then demanding it be shut down due to the noise and smell." - Sean Fear

A completely ridiculous analogy. What happens if you’re the first person into that pub, and then someone comes in after you and starts to smoke? We need to get this “pint and fag” nonsense out of people’s heads. Pubs were around a long time before cigarettes, tobacco and smoking. If we’re going to go down the “pub” scenario route (as many smoking debates tend to,) then it should be universally acknowledged that the non-smoker was there before the smoker. Sean you say that, “one voluntarily enters a place where one can reasonably assume that other people will be smoking.” As a smoker “voluntarily enters a place where he/she can reasonably assume that other people will not be smoking,” and yet still lights up.

[Sean Fear]

"Sean Fear - there is a big difference to 'clean air', even in an urban area and air fouled by your filthy smoking habit."

I don't smoke - although I find life too short to worry about the fact that other people do.

"Do you suggest that I should not enter a pub, it being a 'voluntary act', because of other people's smoke."

Yes, if it bothers you so much.

"In saying that you are saying that smokers deserve more freedom than I do...

No, I'm saying that the owner of the pub ought to be entitled to say whether an entirely lawful activity takes place in the pub. If you dislike the pub owner's decision, don't go there.

[Robbie]

Banning smoking in pubs and restaurants doesn't go far enough. Surely, we need to ban talking in pubs too. I can't stand other people's stupid conversations wafting over me --- there is a strong risk of having to overhear boring stories, offensive views and bad language, all of which represents a significant attack on my right not to be bored, offended or upset. Furthermore, the noise of chatter creates sound pollution, which might cause deafness.
Once we've banned chatting, let's ban alcohol in pubs because drinking costs the NHS money, makes people aggressive and uninhibited, and is fun. . .
Bloody hell, surely the Conservative Party believes in a free society?!? It's so depressing that there are conservative readers of this website who want to trod over the property rights of restaurant owners and publicans, and treat adults like children, just so that they can enjoy a drink in a fun-free environment. Jeepers! Get a grip on a sense of proportion

[Mark Fulford]

"I don't smoke - although I find life too short to worry about the fact that other people do."

And you'll find it shorter still if you don't worry about other people's smoke.

[Mike Christie]

"As a matter of interest, am I right in my suspicion that those here who are most pro-smoking are simultaneously most anti-drugs?

If we're into libertarian choices, why don't we allow cocaine to be consumed in pubs?"

I am anti-drug use, but would support any line of policy that could be shown to reduce the overall cocktail of drug-use and drug-related crime, and if that meant some liberalisation of the law then so be it. It sounds harsh but I'd rather see more individuals suffer because they got into drugs than whole communities suffer the blight of dealers, petty criminals and turf wars that we get currently.

This is a false line of argument. Cocaine use is illegal and whilst there may be a debate on whether any substance should be banned the facts are that it is illegal to use cocaine at home or in the pub.

Smoking tobacco is legal, and there should either be a debate on banning tobacco smoking outright, but whilst it is legal then individual behaviour on private property should be left for the owner of the property to manage.

[Sean Fear]

"Pubs were around a long time before cigarettes, tobacco and smoking."

Quite true, but there's been an association between the two for about 400 years or so.

[Chris Palmer]

Robbie. I am all in favour of a free society - so long as it doesn't affect the health and rights of other humans. I expect you though you were being hilariously clever by writing such a statement above, but sadly you were not. Talking and chatting in a public place does not affect your health directly. If the noise level of that talking went over a certain Db limit, then it would affect your health - and there are already Government laws regarding such. Why not have the same for smoking?

Robbie, do you smoke?

[Derek Buxton]

"I want to do as I like, but you can sod off" seems to be an over-riding theme in this blog. This country was noted for its tolerance now all we get is intolerance and crass stupidity. No wonder B Liar keeps winning elections.

[Mark Fulford]

"This is a false line of argument."

No it’s not. It’s getting right to the heart of the hypocrisy of the debate. On the one hand we support pub-smoking as a legal liberty. On the other hand we despise cocaine use anywhere as an illegal activity. But when we get to the isse of which is more harmful, I suspect people suddenly start switching sides. Tobacco smoke is harmful to the smoker AND people around the smoker. Cocaine is harmful to the taker only.

Once smoking in pubs is banned (which you might as well get used to), smoking in pubs becomes an illegal activity with every bit as much, if not more, justification as cocaine being illegal. And since we’re a party of law-and-order, we’ll fully support the ban.

[Peregrine]

Fascinating that Tories, who are meant to be pragmatic rather than full of hate, can contain so much hate for smokers.

There are clear economic reasons why a voluntary ban in a selection of premises won’t work; indeed don’t landlords already have the option?

There are two freedoms involved here, the right of non-smokers to breathe clean(ish) air and the right of smokers to carry out what is a legal activity in a suitable public place.

The proposed fudge seems to cover both these freedoms and is acceptable to the majority of smokers (I only know of one smoker that refuses to go into non-smoking restaurants). Non-smokers who do not wish to breathe second-hand smoke will be amply catered for as most licensed establishments rely on food to sustain their turnover.

So the accusation of socialist statism wears well on those that want a full ban, unless of course they are willing to back this up with a demand to ban smoking altogether.

[Sean Fear]

"Fascinating that Tories, who are meant to be pragmatic rather than full of hate, can contain so much hate for smokers"

Self-righteousness is something that people of all political persuasions can take pleasure in.

[Mike Christie]

Mark, I am not supporting smoking in pubs so much as opposing making it illegal. It might sound like splitting hairs but there is a fundamental difference.

I would rather no-one smoked in pubs, or anywhere else for that matter. That is my preference, and there are many who agree with me. There is also many who disagree with me, hence I have no problem with the law as it stands.

However, for as long as it is legal to smoke tobacco in this country it should also be legal to smoke it on private property with the consent of the property owner.

I don't despise cocaine use because it is illegal, blind adherence to law is different to supporting law and order. I despise cocaine use because it destroys lives and can lead people into crime, I despise it because users and dealers are responsible for a great deal of crime and misery. Some of the problems associated with hard drug use stem in large part from the fact that it is illegal and only available to purchase from criminals who have cornered the market.

Please feel free to defend your own views, but don't accuse me of hypocrisy because of views you assume I hold.

[Sean Fear]

As a matter of interest, how many contributors to this forum would support making smoking tobacco illegal? That would seem to be the logical conclusion to banning the use of tobacco on private premises.

[Mike Christie]

I'd ba absolutely against it. Surely US prohibition along with drug turf wars and all the other problems that go along with hard drug use in the UK have shown us the futility of trying to legislate to stop people indulging their vices.

Drug dealers cause untold misery in many parts of the country. Now imagine their client base increased 1000 fold.

[Bishop Hill]

When the state decides that smoking or drinking in ones own home is not permitted, I do hope none of the banning fanatics on this thread are going to start whining about loss of their liberties. You are conceding that the state can dictate what otherwise legal activities can take place on private property.

I'm afraid you people deserve Tony Blair and his assault on freedom.

[Chris Palmer]

"There are clear economic reasons why a voluntary ban in a selection of premises won’t work; indeed don’t landlords already have the option?" - Peregrine

Interesting. What might these reasons be then?

[Chris Palmer]

"You are conceding that the state can dictate what otherwise legal activities can take place on private property." - Bishop Hill

This, of course, all depends on how you, I and the bill might define public and private property.

[Andrew Woodman]

I'm very much in favour of the ban from a selfish point of view. I have crohns disease which means I can only spend a limited amount of time in smokey envoirnments before I start getting painful stomach cramps. I consider smokers to be infringing upon my liberty to go out and relegating me to social leper status.

[Ed R]

The same logic could certainly be used to regulate cars to be more environmentally effective, yes, and I look forward to more Conservative policies which reduce car pollution. But cars are, at least, a vital part of our economic infrastructure. Smoking is foul and pointless. By all means, people should do it -- but behind closed doors, not in public places. Same with S&M, cleaning our your toejam, getting completely blotto and whatever else people might get up to behind closed doors. Do it, fine: do it in public, not fine.

(I assume, by the way, that all these people bewailing their rights and their libertarian credo are actively campaigning for the complete decriminalisation of heroin and other such drugs?).

The accusation that the call to ban smoking is "self-righteous" is smug nonsense. Smoking is a foul habit which I have been forced to endure on many occasions not just in pubs (you can go to different pubs, though not easily) but in places like football stadiums where there's frequently no escape. Anti-s laud their right to contaminate their air with their toxic filth, but if a dog defaecated on their lawn or a drunk puked up over their car I imagine many would be singing to a different tune. I realise that heavy smokers naturally don't notice their own foul stench, but for those of us who do, it's appalling. Smoking is perhaps the most pervasive and appalling of all anti-social behaviours and its banning in public areas is long, long, long past overdue.

[Mike Christie]

By all means, people should do it -- but behind closed doors, not in public places. Same with S&M, cleaning our your toejam, getting completely blotto and whatever else people might get up to behind closed doors."

So you would also be in favour of banning getting drunk in pubs and private members S&M clubs?

[Robbie]

Chris Palmer: "I am all in favour of a free society - so long as it doesn't affect the health and rights of other humans."
The statement "I believe in a free society" followed by a "but" or "so long as" usually means that the interlocutor doesn't really have a high-regard for liberty in all its messiness. In our crowded island, all human activity impinges on other people: driving a car causes pollution or noise, letting your dog off the lead in a park upsets parents with small, nervous children etc etc etc. If you believe in a free society, you would not seek to curb someone exercising their freedom to do as they please --- let's say, smoking --- unless it is overwhelmingly clear that someone else's freedom has been trodden on. The evidence for secondary smoking is flimsy, so the health question is irrelevant. A right to a non-smoky environment is meaningless (you might as well say that anti-smokers are denying smokers their right to a smoky environment, or that clubbers have a right to go a non-noisy nightclub); if you don't like a smokey environment, just leave the pub, or better still, establish your own non-smoking pub. In the main, the anti-smokers are left with the pretty feeble argument that a legal substance should be banned in public places because it is smelly and they don't like it.

Oh, and I do occasionally smoke with courtesy for those around me. Should someone ever reasonably ask me not to smoke near them, I would respect their wishes. But the funny thing is in 15 years no one ever has. . . Manners, rather than the blunt instrument, are a better way of dealing with the little social problems that arise from smoking.

[Mike Christie]

"I assume, by the way, that all these people bewailing their rights and their libertarian credo are actively campaigning for the complete decriminalisation of heroin and other such drugs?"

Not actively campaigning, but I do, when considering drug policy, wonder if illegality of hard drugs doesn't cause as many problems as it solves.

Plus there is a world of difference between making something that legal illegal, and vice versa. Giving millions of people the choice between giving up something they enjoy or becoming criminals is hardly likely to increase respect for the forces of law and order.

Just to leave people in no doubt, I think smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit. I'd be delighted if every smoker packed in tomorrow.

However I also think that SUV drivers who don't need to drive off-road or live in the sort of conditions that genuinely warrant an off-road vehicle are also practising a selfish, dirty habit that puts other people in unnecessary danger. However, as much as I shake my head at the school-run mums in their Landcruisers I wouldn't seriously advocate legislation to stop them.

[James Hellyer]

You can flip this argument around: it's interesting that many of the people who want to legislate to restrict smoking are in favour of liberalising laws concerning other drugs. How do they reconcile the two positions?

[Richard]

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

And this current topic goes to prove Mill right! If I as a pub landlord wish to allow smoking in MY pub a pub that I have paid for and that I own then that is up to ME. Just as it is up to ME who is and who is not allowed in MY pub. It has NOTHING what so ever to do with anyone else be they smokers or non smokers.

I don't smoke but I don't mind if others do. It is their life and if they choose to spend it smoking then what has that got to do with me.

Smoking IS legal and other drugs are NOT legal so the argument being put forward by some on this site is just tosh. The idea that just because you oppose a ban on smoking means you automatically support the legalisation of drugs is just complete and utter rubbish.

[Richard]

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

And this current topic goes to prove Mill right! If I as a pub landlord wish to allow smoking in MY pub a pub that I have paid for and that I own then that is up to ME. Just as it is up to ME who is and who is not allowed in MY pub. It has NOTHING what so ever to do with anyone else be they smokers or non smokers.

I don't smoke but I don't mind if others do. It is their life and if they choose to spend it smoking then what has that got to do with me.

Smoking IS legal and other drugs are NOT legal so the argument being put forward by some on this site is just tosh. The idea that just because you oppose a ban on smoking means you automatically support the legalisation of drugs is just complete and utter rubbish.

[Andrew]

"As a matter of interest, am I right in my suspicion that those here who are most pro-smoking are simultaneously most anti-drugs?"

Sounds about right. Most peoples' concept of freedoms is of their own, not others.

Having said that, there is pretty clear harm to others in passive smoking. Not wanting to get cancer is hardly an illogical or extremist position to take - should these people be excluded from pubs?

Ideally of course, there would be a nice mixture of smoking/non places. Perhaps government ought to be looking to some other method to encourage this without restricting smokers' rights - the licensing system seems ideally placed.

[Mike Christie]

Just to confuse the hard of thinking...

I fully support a smoking ban in all enclosed public places.

I have not changed my mind at all from my previous posts.

[Andrew Woodman]

Robbie - 'The evidence for secondary smoking is flimsy, so the health question is irrelevant.'

I suppose people like me and asthma sufferers are invesnting the health problems we have around smoke. You can't make sweeping statements like that which are simply untrue.

[David Kehoe]

I hate smoking and avoid pubs because of their smokey atmosphere but everyone has the right to smoke if they wish to. I don't want the state to legislate for my personal lieftyle choices. If I did smoke at home that might make me a poor parent but not a criminal so the law should stay out of it.

My personal instinct is libertarian but I believe that this discussion is not about libertarian v statist approaches. I do agree that many of the motivations of those who wish to ban smoking in so called public places come from a socialist perspective of the elite apparatchiks knowing what is best for us. That makes me suspicious of the ban and inclined to oppose it.

However while Pubs and restaurants are private places they are also places of work. I am glad that the office I go to is smoke free and I think that it is right that the law would uphold my right to work in a smoke free environment. I unfortunately have no choice but to work for a living and therefore do not feel I should have to make a choice between an avoidable health risk and my employment. After all I am choosing to go to an office not to work on an oil rig which brings a set of inherent dangers.

The issue should be seen from a health and safety issue in a place of employment. Then issue becomes one of whether we believe that pubs and restaurants should be treated differently than other places of work.

There are arguments to say they should be, after all there is an inherent risk in working in an environment where one is serving a drug that can alter behavior and has been known to lead to violence. People who accept to work in such an environment accept that risk but at same time should expect that everything is done to mitigate that risk – bouncers, CCTV, extractor fans etc.

Of course if the pub is run by an individual with no staff then that person should be free to operate their public any way they wish.

[malcolm]

You're talking absolute rubbish Bishop Hill.Nobody,but nobody deserves Tony Blair.

[John Hustings]

I think all conservatives should be extremely way of banning things.

If you have the desire to ban everything that irritates you or that you dislike -- even if it is with the genuine desire to do good -- then you become extremely authoritarian and create an unpleasant society, much worse off than if you hadn't interfered at all. This is what we've seen from this Labour government.

In a free society, that means allowing things we find obnoxious. You're not really a believer in a free society if you only believe in the freedom of those things you approve of.

[Sean Fear]

" I realise that heavy smokers naturally don't notice their own foul stench, but for those of us who do, it's appalling. Smoking is perhaps the most pervasive and appalling of all anti-social behaviours and its banning in public areas is long, long, long past overdue."

I really don't find my life spoiled to the extent that yours is by other peoples' smoke, nor do I find smokers discourteous. I do wonder if it really is spoiling your life to the extent you imagine, or whether you're just getting angry at people doing something you don't like.

Perhaps the fault is mine; perhaps I really ought to be frothing with rage at the sight of other people smoking, but I just can't do it.

[Bishop Hill]

Private property is property in private ownership. The definition has stood for centuries. Now a bunch of socialists redefine it as "anywhere the public goes" and you stand by and applaud them for it. You are opening the gates wide for the state to dictate to you what you can do in your own home. All they need to do is redefine "the public". Got some friends coming round? Sorry, no drinking on public property.

Smoking is a filthy habit. To say that this is a reason to ban it is frankly disgusting and authoritarian. What gives you the right to say what legal activities I can allow on my own property? I bought it, not you. Not the state.

Do you think it's because you have a democratic mandate? And do you think that your democratic mandate gives you the right to make me do anything? Anything? Do you favour democracy over liberty?

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is forced to go to a smoky pub, including the staff. But you think that it is fine to force pubs to change to suit your personal preferences. Just think through the implications of what you are proposing. You are suggesting that burly policemen should be sent round, armed with truncheons, to arrest publicans for allowing people to engage in a legal activity on their own property.

You want people arrested for allowing smoking in their own pub? Because you don't like cigarette smoke?

I'm sorry but this is disgusting.

[Bishop Hill]

Malcolm:

I'm sorry but if you won't stand up for other people's liberties then you deserve Tony Blair's war on liberty.

[Robbie]

Andrew Woodman: "I suppose people like me and asthma sufferers are invesnting the health problems we have around smoke. You can't make sweeping statements like that which are simply untrue."
I'm sorry that you have a condition which is aggravated by smokey conditions; (although I know plenty of people who suffer from asthma who still smoke) but smoking does not cause your condition, it aggravates or irritates it, but probably no more or less than the pollution from cars or the smoke from a neighbour's bonfire; neither of which I assume you would want to see banned. If there was clear, irrefutable evidence that secondary smoking caused, say, lung cancer then there might be a case for banning smoking in enclosed, public spaces. But there isn't it.
Here's the hard fact --- that you feel unwell in a smokey environment is not a strong enough reason, in my opinion, to curtail someone else's liberty to do as they please. If I suffered from vertigo I'd avoid tall buildings, rather than ban them; if I had a health condition which was aggravated by smoking, I'd avoid cigarette smoke. . . This is the small price for the bountiful benefits of a free society.

[John Hustings]

I think too many people approach prospective bans with "well, I don't like it, so it should be banned".

We see that on the smacking issue as well. People say, "well I don't like the smacking of children". Fair enough, that's an opinion you're entitled to. But too many take that their position as a liberty to *criminalise* the other position.

But we must never overlook the most precious, and most underrated, commodity we have: individual freedom.

Put it this way: you may not be a smoker, but some day the government will look to ban something you *do* enjoy doing. It is then that you will be caught in your hypocrisy.

[Andrew]

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/980

Design: Analysis of 37 published epidemiological studies of the risk of lung cancer (4626 cases) in non-smokers who did and did not live with a smoker......

Results: The excess risk of lung cancer was 24% (95% confidence interval 13% to 36%) in non-smokers who lived with a smoker (P<0.001).

[Mike Christie]

Those statistics may well be accurate, but even so, being brutal, living with a smoker is a choice, starting a family with a smoker is a choice.

If people were advocating making tobacco illegal I'd have a little more sympathy, but not much. Either it is legal, in which case property owners should be free to choose if people endulge on their property, or it should be illegal.

Careful Andrew, you'll get smoking banned in the home too.

Drinking will be next and before you know it we'll have a national diet and black pudding will be declared a class A substance.

If you spend that much time in a smokey pub that it equates to the exposure of living with a smoker, you probably need to examine your lifestyle anyway.

[Mark Fulford]

"Smoking IS legal and other drugs are NOT legal so the argument being put forward by some on this site is just tosh."

You are wrong because this implies that once a drug has been defined as legal, its status should not reconsidered. It’s perfectly reasonable for a drug to be reclassified to legal in certain circumstances.

"You can flip this argument around: it's interesting that many of the people who want to legislate to restrict smoking are in favour of liberalising laws concerning other drugs. How do they reconcile the two positions?"

People should be free to do anything that doesn’t harm others. If something does harm others, it has to be judged in the context of the common good. Cocaine and ecstasy use doesn’t harm others (except as a result of its unlawfulness). Smoking any substance releases harmful toxins into the air that harms indiscriminately, with no benefit to the common good. Cars release toxins, but provide necessary transport.

[James Hellyer]

The main thing that lends the call for a ban on smoking credence in "public" places is the apparent failutre of market mechanisms to provide non-smoking pubs and restaurants. However the reason for this failure has already been demonstrated by one person on this thread:

"If I go for a Sunday drink with family who smoke, I am subject to their filth. If I dont go I am being unsociable - a no win situation."

People who object to smoking have abdicated their responsibility to boycot establishments that allow smoking, having made their owners aware of the reasons for that boycot. Having abdicated thus, they now expect the state to do their job for them.

[Mike Christie]

"By all means, people should do it -- but behind closed doors, not in public places. Same with S&M, cleaning our your toejam, getting completely blotto and whatever else people might get up to behind closed doors."

Just to go back to this concept again. Even the list of things that should be kept behind closed doors is debatable. There are many who would include :

breast feeding, discrete displays of homosexual affection (hand holding and the like), expressions of political views that differ from the mainstream, expression of social values that differ from the mainstream, displays of religious devotion and all sorts of things.

Who decides what is acceptable? Do we want government to legislate on these too?

[Mike Christie]

"You are wrong because this implies that once a drug has been defined as legal, its status should not reconsidered. It’s perfectly reasonable for a drug to be reclassified to legal in certain circumstances."

I'm afraid you are wrong because you are confusing the opposition to banning a legal activity on private property with support for reviewing the status of an illegal activity.

For many of those against the ban it isn't about smoking at all. It is about whether we allow government to dictate which legal activities we may or may not do on private property with the property owner's consent.

If it is legal for me to do something in the street why should it become illegal for me to do it when I step into private property, if the owner of that property has no objections?

[Mark Fulford]

"I'm afraid you are wrong because you are confusing the opposition to banning a legal activity on private property with support for reviewing the status of an illegal activity."

I am not. I am saying that it is reasonable for society to agree to change the restrictions on tobacco use.

"If it is legal for me to do something in the street why should it become illegal for me to do it when I step into private property, if the owner of that property has no objections?"

Because you don't have the right to harm another person without that person's explicit consent. Tobacco smoke is more harmful in a confined space than on the street.

[Chris Palmer]

"If you believe in a free society, you would not seek to curb someone exercising their freedom to do as they please --- let's say, smoking --- unless it is overwhelmingly clear that someone else's freedom has been trodden on. The evidence for secondary smoking is flimsy, so the health question is irrelevant." - Robbie

The typical argument a smoker gives - especially when they dismiss evidence regarding how it affects health. Just because you couldn't care about your own health doesn't mean that others don't care about theirs. Further, people around you obviously have better manners than yourself. You smoke without asking those around you if you can, rather than asking if you can smoke, and then upon their answer, either lighting up or not. Your arrogance Robbie, is blinding.

“I don't smoke but I don't mind if others do. It is their life and if they choose to spend it smoking then what has that got to do with me.” – Richard

It has something to do with you the moment you are affected by the consequences of a person smoking; 2nd hand smoke inhalation and increased taxation due to smokers using the NHS to have lung cancer treatment being two examples.

Dave Kehoe makes some good points. Read his post.

“We see that on the smacking issue as well. People say, "well I don't like the smacking of children". Fair enough, that's an opinion you're entitled to. But too many take that their position as a liberty to *criminalise* the other position.” – John Hustings

It’s not REALLY the same is it John. This proposed bill won’t ban smoking altogether – just in public areas, as opposed to smacking a child, which was banned outright.

The problem with smoking is that one person's consumption can affect not only themselves, but a great deal of other people in their vicinity due to smoke drifting.

[Tory T]

I find this discussion truly terrifying. For some of our anti-smokers there appears to be no gap between disapproving of something and seeking to outlaw it and no understanding of the distinction between public and private space.

Do we, as a society, have to decide everything collectively? What we watch, what we consume, what we say, what we think? One of the defining characteristics of a free society is the toleration of choice and of difference. That's how we learn what works - through trial and error. Traditionally this has been regulated, in part, by the understanding that ownership of property implies control of what happens in that space. If freely consenting adults wish to gather in a privately owned pub and smoke that is their business - and no one elses.

Personally, I tend to avoid such establishments because I don't smoke. Equally, if I know of a pub favoured by heavy metal fans where they play Motorhead tracks at full volume I'll give that a miss too.

What we are witnessing in the smoking debate is a ghastly cocktail of pious Fabianism (forcing people to be better behaved, as if they were children) and oppressive selfishness ("I don't like Heavy Metal - it should be banned from pubs").

Once we start treating other people like children then they will start treating us like children and we'll end up with a socialist nanny state in which the functions and choices of adulthood have been usurped. And once we start banning things because we don't like them then the capricious and random impositions of others will turn us against each other.

Banning smoking in PRIVATE spaces is not progressive - it's a step back into the autocratic dark ages.

[Robbie]

"Because you don't have the right to harm another person without that person's explicit consent."
Harm? As has been pointed out the harm caused to non-smokers by smoking in pubs is unproven or negligible. There might well be a risk of passive smoking, but to ban smoking would be disproportionate: a real freedom would be sacrificed for a very notional, hazy freedom not to harmed by tobacco smoke. It would be as disproportionate as banning motor cars because there is a risk that (non-consenting) pedestrians may be knocked over in freak accidents by law-abiding, responsible drivers.

[Peregrine]

Andrew, a large number of epidemiologists will not accept any risk ratio of less than 100% (often 200%), so the ratio of 24% is not considered by some to be a scientific proof that there is an effect on the general population, as there are too many other variables (diet in particular). Remember smokers are a generally unhealthy lot, and those around them will share in other “bad” habits even if they don’t smoke.

Chris, I suppose my use of the word economic may have been incorrect but it is a main tenet of the anti lobby that pubs that allow smoking will attract more customers than those that don’t, therefore the voluntary introduction of a no smoking policy will not attract the number of establishments necessary to make the difference they seek. The market (e.g. fact that Weatherspoons are reversing their no smoking policy in some of their pubs) bears this out. The explanation is two-fold, a much higher percentage of pub goers smoke compared to the general population (I have seen the figure 50% about) and smokers often dictate where a mixed group will go.

[Mike Christie]

"I am saying that it is reasonable for society to agree to change the restrictions on tobacco use" - Then let it be an honest debate, without the dangerous redefinition of private property as a public place. If 'society' decides that 2nd hand smoke is an unacceptable risk then smoking should be banned outright as it is indefensible to protect adults from potential harm in places they can freely choose to avoid but not to protect children or the vulnerable in their own homes. What we have here is another socialist social experiment at the expense of liberty.

[James Hellyer]

For once I agree with Tory T. I think there's a big distinction between "public spaces" and private property to which the public are allowed conditional access.

[Sean Fear]

I always thought Conservatism was about upholding private property rights.

If I choose to go onto private property, in circumstances where the owner of that property permits people to perform a lawful activity which I don't like, I'm entitled to ask those people to stop doing that activity, or to ask the owner to prevent them from doing so. But what I'm not entitled to do is to demand a law to prohibit them from doing what I don't like.

[Robbie]

Can I ban Chris Palmer? He's affecting my health adversely by writing things that raise my blood pressure.
I've never met the guy, so it's rather strange that he accuses me of arrogance and inconsiderate smoking. I think the greatest kind of arrogance is to presume to tell other people how to lead their life or what they can and cannot do. I have no wish to make other people to force other people to conform to my virtues or vices.

[Tory T]

And can we please hear no more spurious nonsense about the cost of smoking to the NHS? Of course it's annoying that taxpayers' money is wasted on helping people who harm themselves or do dangerous things but we either pick the tab for these practices or we don't. Rugby, paragliding, failed suicide attempts, over-eating - all pose a risk to the health of those who engage in them...

[Chris Palmer]

"Can I ban Chris Palmer? He's affecting my health adversely by writing things that raise my blood pressure." - Robbie

I would have said the evidence for such a claim "is flimsy, so the health question is irrelevant."

"I think the greatest kind of arrogance is to presume to tell other people how to lead their life or what they can and cannot do" - Robbie

Rather than the person (such as yourself) who forces their lifestyle (ie. smoking) on those around them? I merely pointed out that you were being arrogant (and rude to the extreme) by not asking those around you if you could smoke or not - since it would directly affect them.

[Sean Fear]

Yes, Robbie. So many people will jump to the conclusion that if one is opposed to this ban, one is a smoker. Being a non-smoker, I imagine I would see a very marginal increase in the enjoyment I get from pub visits if smoking in pubs were banned (though doubtless some pubs would shut down due to loss of business as smokers stayed at home).

But that really is secondary to the defence of private property rights for me. If people had no choice but to go into pubs, I'm sure I'd feel differently - but they do have that choice.

[Sean Fear]

Tory T, smokers and drinkers contribute far more in VAT and excise duties than the NHS will ever spend on them.

[malcolm]

Robbie,Chris Palmers' comments are mild compared to some other bloggers who used to send me apoplectic.'Jack Stone','Babara Villiers' and the worlds greatest comedian 'Rick'to name three.None of them have posted for ages so my blood pressure has returned to normal!

[Tory T]

Fair point, Sean. If we're to have a socialised system of medicine then we should treat everyone, warts and all - and not use their ill health as an excuse to ban self-regarding acts.

[Chris Palmer]

Tory T: You're missing the point. The "I Don't Like Heavy Metal" stance is not a similar analogy, because you simply have a dislike for that type of music. You might not like listening to that music, but listening to it doesn't affect you health - as smoking does.

“(though doubtless some pubs would shut down due to loss of business as smokers stayed at home).” – Sean Fear

One or two might. However, just like their inability to give up smoking, smokers who frequent pubs would not give up going to pubs because of a smoking ban. Look at Ireland. And speaking of Ireland, also look at the pubs there too. New non-smoking customers have been attracted to the pubs since their ban, more than filling the small void left by any smokers who did manage to give up drinking.

“Tory T, smokers and drinkers contribute far more in VAT and excise duties than the NHS will ever spend on them.” – Sean Fear

Simply put: no they don’t.

[Mark Fulford]

Limited business rights on private property is nothing new. To take a relevant example, we don't have the right to sell alcohol without a license.

[Robbie]

Alas, Sean, I am an occasional smoker. But if I light-up I ask the people I'm with whether that's okay. I don't smoke near children in cafes because I know that parents can be neurotic. Most of us smokers, professional or players, are pretty considerate. I have only on a handful of occasions seen someone ask a non-smoker to desist; everytime it resolved itself amicably and in the favour of the non-smoker.

[Mark Fulford]

You couldn't resist "neurotic", could you? ;-)

[Sean Fear]

"we don't have the right to sell alcohol without a license."

Obviously not. Allowing anyone to set up a bar wherever they liked could cause nuisance to their neighbours. Cigarette smoke in pubs does not cause nuisance to anyone who doesn't choose to set foot in them.

[Robbie]

"Neurotic". Yes, was a bit cheap and underhand, but what can one expect from a smoker who spends his time slowly slaughtering people with his cigarettes of doom!

[James Hellyer]

"Limited business rights on private property is nothing new. To take a relevant example, we don't have the right to sell alcohol without a license."

Saying you need a licence to do something on which there are legal restrictions is not really the same as saying that you can't allow legal behaviour.

[Tory T]

No Chris, you're missing the point. Being in a privately owned pub is a voluntary act. If things are going on in there that you fear may affect your health - and ultra loud music, like smoke, might do so - then DON'T GO IN. How hard is that?

It's up to smokers to be considerate and it's up to non-smokers to be assertive. As a non-smoker I make it clear to my mates that I won't meet them in a smokey environment - I don't need the state to regulate my relationships with my friends.

It's so nice of you to be concerned for the profits of pub owners. Why not let them decide for themselves whether banning smoking in their own premises will maximise their profits? Stop trying to second guess everyone.

[Chris Palmer]

"No Chris, you're missing the point. Being in a privately owned pub is a voluntary act. If things are going on in there that you fear may affect your health - and ultra loud music, like smoke, might do so - then DON'T GO IN. How hard is that?" - Tory T

What happens if the Non-Smoker is in the pub first? Why should they be forced to leave?

"Why not let them decide for themselves whether banning smoking in their own premises will maximise their profits?" - Tory T

So profit should always come before other concerns?

[Mark Fulford]

"Saying you need a licence to do something on which there are legal restrictions is not really the same as saying that you can't allow legal behaviour."

No, but it's a fair illustration that we don't have and can't expect unfettered use of our own land.

[Tory T]

"What happens if the Non-Smoker is in the pub first? Why should they be forced to leave?" You just don't get it, do you, Chris? The pub belongs to someone - the landlord, often. It's up to him to decide what goes and what doesn't go on his property In a dispute between smokers and non-smokers he should decide - not you and certainly not the state.

"So profit should always come before other concerns?" - er, no. But don't pretend to have any concern for whether pubs can make a profit (eg - citing dodgy stats from Ireland) when it's obvious that you don't care.

[Tory T]

Mark - stop erecting straw men. No one is arguing for the 'unfettered' use of private land. If I want to build a smelly factory on my land, or play pounding music that carries beyond the boundaries, the`state has a right to intervene because these are other-regarding acts. But if I want to smoke (which I don't!) then it's my business. If you're in my house and one of my guests lights up then you can ask me to tell him to stop, you can put up with it or you can leave. If I tell Mr Smoker to stub his fag out he has exactly the same set of choices. The point is that it's my choice - not yours.