4 Justification for a ban
41. In this chapter we consider, in principle, the
arguments for and against a ban on smoking in enclosed public
places and workplaces; in later chapters we will look at the arguments
for and against the Government's proposed exemptions for institutions
where people live, and for clubs and some pubs. The justification
for the principle of a ban is straightforward: workers have a
right to be protected from SHS. The argument depends on two assumptions:
that SHS is a significant danger to health and that other ways
of mitigating this danger such as ventilation are impracticable
and ineffective. Given the validity of these two assumptions,
and the vast majority of expert opinion accepts them, a ban is
justified. The situation is the same as it would be for any other
health hazard. Workers should no more be exposed to SHS than to
asbestos.
42. As well as workers, there are other vulnerable
groups which particularly require protection from harm, including
people with asthma, children and unborn babies.[40]
It is also argued that people who have given up smoking should
be protected from having to spend time with smokers, since smoking
is a powerful addiction and ex-smokers are more likely to relapse
if they have to mix with smokers.
43. There are indirect health benefits of a ban.
First, it is expected that the amount smokers smoke will decrease
and that some smokers will give up altogether. The Northern Ireland
Minister of Health, Shaun Woodward MP, told us about his experiences
when he was in New York, where there was a ban: because it was
too much trouble to go outside for a cigarette, he gave up.[41]
The Government's partial Regulatory Impact Assessment estimates
that "the total benefit, in reduced smoking, of moving from
the current situation to completely smokefree indoor public places
(including workplaces) is [
] a fall of around 1.7 percentage
points in smoking prevalence in England".[42]
Secondly, a ban sends a powerful message that smoking and secondhand
smoke is unhealthy; smokers will be reluctant to light up in front
of their children, and the evidence demonstrates that as a result,
more homes become smoke-free. These expected changes provide secondary
arguments for a ban but do not in themselves justify a ban, as
witnesses recognised.
44. There are several arguments against a ban. They
include:
- The economic consequences for
pubs and other hospitality industry businesses would be excessive;
- We want to live in a tolerant society which does
not limit liberty or freedom of choice;
- The rights of smokers outweigh the risks to workers
who are free to choose whether to do a dangerous job.
45. There are concerns that not only could the economic
consequences of a ban be disastrous for the hospitality industry,
but they could also have serious social consequences, leading
many village pubs, which are vital institutions, to close. It
is claimed that in some villages the loss of the pub would mean
the loss of the heart of the village. Professor Roger Scruton,
a philosopher and writer, informed us:
For many people [
] the cigarette and the
pint are bound by an indissoluble marriage, and a ban on smoking
will therefore drive them from the pub. I believe that the pub,
properly managed, frequented by respectable people of the neighbourhood
and conducted under a regime of controlled social drinking is
a huge social asset, and that to destroy it would have serious
consequences, especially on the socialisation of the young.[43]
46. There is also a strong feeling that we do not
want to live in a society which readily bans activities; we may
disapprove of other people's actions but we should be reluctant
to ban them. This is a feeling shared by many people, but it is
not an argument for never imposing a ban on an activity. Each
issue has to be judged on its merits. If there is evidence that
a substance is dangerous, people should be protected from it.
Dr Richard Ashcroft, a medical ethicist from Imperial College,
told us "The main way in which you can justify restricting
someone's liberty is where they are causing harm to others".[44]
47. Related to our desire to live in a tolerant society
is the strongly held belief that smokers have a right to pursue
a legal activity, especially in places like pubs where smoking
is common and where, importantly, no one is forced to go. Judging
by the opinion polls this argument is relatively popular, if decreasingly
so. Some of the proponents of this view tend to ignore the rights
of workers: when asked whether smokers should be allowed to smoke
in pubs, people tend to agree and are more likely to oppose a
ban on smoking; however, if asked about the need to protect bar
staff many more will support a ban. As we have seen, according
to Choosing Health, the public simultaneously believe that
people should be protected from doing things which put the health
of others at risk and that there should not be a complete ban
in all licensed premises, an apparently contradictory position.[45]
48. Other proponents of the view accept that there
is a risk to workers but argue that other jobs are more dangerous
and people choose where to work: if they are concerned about the
risk to their health from a smoky environment, they can always
find a less dangerous job. The Minister for Public Health, Caroline
Flint MP, came close to this view, stating "I think we had
to look at a way forward which [
] would give more choice
for people to work [
] in smoke-free environment [
]
and there will be more choice for every workers covered by our
proposals".[46]
In contrast, other witnesses argued that in practice many workers
had little choice. There is little alternative to bar work for
some people, such as students and single parents, who need the
flexible arrangements and local availability the job offers.[47]
We took evidence from a bar worker from Newcastle who pointed
out that many young people are unaware of the risks they are running
if they get a job in a smoky bar. Ms Pauline Robson told us:
I have worked in a pub for 35 years and 35 years
ago smoking was not an issue. I did not even think about it when
I was younger. It is only as you become more educated and when
you see the advertisements that are coming on the television nowthere
is that new one where you see the clot going up the vein, it really
freaks you outthat you are encouraged not to smoke. I work
in a pub, we take about £40,000 per week, it is a busy pub
and we have about 46 staff [
] I think a total ban would
be the best thing. Everybody would know where they stood and there
would not be some playing off against others. We owe the next
generation good healthy living and we should show them an example.[48]
49. Moreover, the argument that workers can choose
where to work and therefore can decide whether to take on health
risks goes against the grain of most legislation to protect workers.[49]
The same point could have been made about child chimney sweeps.
50. Other jobs are by their nature more dangerous
than working in a smoky bar, such as coal mining, or deep sea
diving. However, in these jobs every effort is made to reduce
the risks and eliminate unnecessary hazards. Moreover, the danger
to coal miners, deep sea divers or trawler men is intrinsic to
the task; the situation in bars is not the same. It is not essential
that bar workers suffer exposure to carcinogens in secondhand
smoke.
51. In balancing
the economic effects on businesses and smokers' rights against
workers' rights, we have to weigh up the likely effect on each
group. The experience in Ireland suggests that the economic consequences
of the ban on the hospitality industry have been slight and that
smokers' suffering has been relatively trivial: if smokers want
to smoke they go outside and do not seem to mind too much. In
contrast, there is strong evidence that smoking in the workplace
has significant effects. As we have seen, it is estimated that
about 500 non-smokers each year die prematurely from inhaling
secondhand smoke in the workplace; this is surely too high a price
to pay for the right to smoke. We cannot accept that the right
to smoke can justify these deaths. Workers have a right to be
protected from harmful substances unless there is an overwhelming
reason for undertaking the risk.
40 There are 5.1 m people in the UK with asthma, and
cigarette smoke is the second most common asthma trigger in the
workplace. 20% of people with asthma feel excluded from parts
of their workplace because other people smoke there. Department
of Health, Consultation on the Smoke-free Elements of the Health
Improvement and Protection Bill, p 22, Ref: 269278 1p 1k Jun
05 (CWP). Back
41
Q 529 Back
42
ibid, p 20. Back
43
Ev 117, Volume III Back
44
Q 88 Back
45
Department of Health, Choosing Health: Making healthy choices
easier, Cm 6374, November 2004, p 97, suggests that these
views were based on an Opinion Leader Research survey, but no
question on this issue is included in the survey. Back
46
Q 545 Back
47
Q 383 Back
48
Q 379 Back
49
Q 383 Back
|