Smoking Bans

The smoking ban in pubs and other public places seems to have been succesfully implemented in England after some initial opposition.This follows other similar bans elsewhere around the world, perhaps most notably New York city as well as various locations in Europe.Is this an essential public health measure or an infringement of individual rights?

OK.Is smoking on private property that is not a public space something that should remain legally permissable or not?For example should it, in your opinion, be legal or illegal to smoke in the home when this results in children being subjected to passive smoke?Would you consider the law as it currently stands to be about right, not restrictive enough, or too stringent?

Hi Oni
My personal opinion is that the law as it currently stands is about right. I think it is a public health issue and that the action recently taken has worked out pretty well. Better than I expected in fact.Placing further legal restrictions would I think be both impractical and would also arguably require a fairly significant infringement of privacy. Not off topic at all as far as I am concerned. And an interesting question.I think the "coffee shop" culture of Amsterdam works pretty well. We had a less blatantly legal (but in practical terms quite similar) policy in effect in the part of London that I live for a while as a sort of trial. I have only ever smoked those kind of cigarettes and am not a regular by any definition but I quite enjoyed the (all too brief) freedom to do so.I am not sure how specific "coffee shops" for smoking could be implemented without unduly compromiing the public health issue that the smoking ban is meant to address. After all a main reason cited for the ban was to protect those who work in pubs, bars, clubs, comedy venues etc. etc. I guess not taking a job in a "coffee shop" if you don't want to be subjected to other people's smoke is an obvious answer. But that same argument as applied to clubs and pubs didn't find much favour with unions or politicians..............

Whilst I am not entirely unsympathetic with the sentiment of your comments I am intrigued as to how you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory conclusions?You have stated that smoking in the home where children are present should be a matter of common sense and not law, but smoking in ones car with children is something that you seem to strongly feel should be criminalised.Are both ones home and ones car not equally private personal spaces?

From a personal point of view so am I.It has made a huge difference to not have my clothes and hair infested with the smell of smoke after every pub outing.Now all I have to worry about is my beery breath giving the game away as to where I have been..........

I would have no problem with designated 'licensed' smoking bars (of any of the sorts of smoking discussed so far) as long as this did not result in more general legal loopholes that could be exploited or the infringment of the rights of those who work in such places. This does indeed seem to be true. However I am not sure exactly why?

I realise that. But he does not seeem to think that it should be illegal.Whilst he does also seem to think that more than common sense (i.e. law) is required when it comes to stopping smoking in cars with children.This, to me, seems contradictory as both are equally personal private spaces. So I don't undestrand the rationale for thinking one should be illegal and the other not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh. I took it to mean that no it should not be actually illegal and that it should instead be left to the common sense of the parent/carer to not smoke in the home where children are present..I guess that we need Taz to clarify what he did actually mean. Fair enough. If your interpretation of Taz's response is correct then Taz is indeed not being inconsistent and I will stand corrected on that point.However if it is being proposed by Taz that the current law should be extended to banning smoking in the home under certain circumstances (i.e. when children are present) then I think that opens up another area of fairly contentious questions regarding both privacy and the practicality of enforcement.

I am inclined to partially agree. Having designated smoking bars that are licensed exceptions to the otherwise universal ban in public places seems like a fair compromise to me.I think this was rejected here because of legal complications pertaining to the health rights of bar staff in such establishments. Perhaps further complicated by the fact that staff of many British pubs reside on the pub premises (meaning that if the pub was given a license as a smoking bar and the staff objected they would lose both their job and their place of residence).However I may well be speculating out of my arse here as frankly I am unclear as to exactly why this was rejected in favour of a blanket ban. Before the ban here there was little choice as all pubs and bars were the smoke filled, sore throat inducing, havens of nicotine addicts.The general consensus (he says having taken no census from those other than his close friends and family) is that things are much better now and, looking back, I am not sure how I put up with the previous situation (although obviously I did) As a habitual cyclist in one of the biggest, busiest and most polluted cities in the world I don't find it all funny. But don't get me on my high horse (or 'all terrain mountain bike' to be more exact) on that particular subject........

Again I have some sympathy with the examples that you cite.Lines must be drawn and the law must reflect those lines. No-one, especially not I, is denying that.But these things are inherently arbitrary to some degree as it becomes impossible to rationalise completely what should and should not be legal. You previously cited having sex in the privacy of your own home but in front of children as something that should be illegal. I would agree.You cite negligence or even criminal misconduct against children as a result of alcohol abuse as something that should be illegal. I would agree.Just to be absoluetly clear - Are you saying that smoking in the privacy of ones home when children are present should also be illegal? In the interests of childrens health should we have legalised dietary requirements to be administered to children by parents? E.g. maximum levels of calorific intake, fat, salt etc.?By the same logic you apply to smoking at home should there be laws regarding these issues given that obesity is one of the major health epidemics in the Western world and in particualr the US?Should we have a legal limit on the number of hours a child can watch TV per day?Should there be a legal minimum stipulated as to the amount of physical exercise a child should undertake per day?Should there be a legal limit on the amount of time parents can spend on internet debate sites in order to ensure that their kids are not neglected?Sould all harmful practises be illegal? How do we determine which should and which should not? By making such practises illegal and enforcing the law as far as is practically possible.The point is where is the line that we draw regarding that which we socially frown upon and that which we make illegal?You seem to be sugesting that this is a black and white open and shut case. But it isn't.

You make some excellent points. If a parent who eats a high fat, high carb, high sugar diet devoid of vitamins and minerals also inflicts this diet upon their children should this also be illegal? How do we legalise against such practises? Should we legailise against such practises?By the logic of your argument, as I understand it, the answer must be 'yes'. Personally I am not a smoker and never have been but I remain unconvinced that making smoking in the home under any circumstances illegal is either practically possible or in principle desirable.I am not a conservative anti-government interventionalist by any stretch of the imagination but, as imperfect as it is, I feel that health eduction and the changing of social attitudes is a better way to tackle this issue.However I did originally ask the question because I am unsure of the exact reasoning behind my opinions. As such I am open to argument either way. Unless ALL potentially harmful activities are to be outlawed I think special pleading of one sort or another is inevitable. The fact is that laws are necessarily arbitrary to a degree as we exist in a non black and white, non perfectly rational, reality of humanity.The question is on what basis the special pleading is made and how valid we can subjectively but collectively deem that special pleading to be.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The inevitable problem with such lines is that they are necessarily arbitrary to some extent. Reason and rationality can define the boundaries to some degree but the exact location of the line will ultimately be a matter of personal opinion. Opinion depending on the relative importance one places on 'freedom' and 'individual responsibility' as opposed to the collective need to limit such freedoms in the interests of "society" and those individuals in society who do not have the capacity to forge their own destiny (i.e. dependent children in this case)We all agree that a line is required. But my point is that there is no entirely rational position that this 'line' must logically inhabit.Based on both our previous contributions on EvC I suspect that you and I would broadly agree on the rough position of such a line in most examples........... And I would agree to a large extent.Perhaps we could make such regular checkups compulsory for all children and include lung analysis (if such a thing is medically possible) to determine whether or not children are being adversely affcted by smoking parents?Would this cross the line of "personal freedom" in your opinion? I think many would deem that it does. No. Fair point. I am taking an example derived from mass media hysteria rather than evidenced research. Bad example on my part. Why wait until there is a definite problem? If prevention is superior to treatment then why not regular compulsory medical checks for all kids to seek indications of potential problems and to tackle the root causes of such problems before there is an actual problem?Isn't this a superior answer in purely rational and medical terms?Whilst it may be more rational and medically superior is it right?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Sorry this was unclear on my part. I was not suggesting that you think smoking in the home should be illegal under all circumstances.Rather I meant that legally prohibiting smoking in the privacy of ones home in general, including those circumstances where children are present, is both arguably impractical and undesirable from a privacy/freedom point of view.See my post to your other response for answers to the child obesity comparison etc.

Whose common sense? Yours? Mine? Somebody elses? Is it?What counts as a "child"? Why?
What counts as the "home"? Why?
What counts as "common sense"? Why? Answer the questions above and we will see how simple the question really is.Answer the questions above and we will see how much you and I actually disagree.We might also be able to ascertain how difficult or possible this agreement (or otherwise) is possible to transcribe into meaningful laws.As previously stated I remain open to argument on this.......