Smoking in London
<< Previous 1 l 2
The bill's easy passing was the culmination of years of a strong and steadily growing anti-smoking movement that many believe has made smoking appear immoral in public opinion.
The bill that was originally proposed, which excluded pubs that do not serve food from the proposed ban, was significantly weaker than the one that has now passed, thanks in large part to strong public support, continuing medical warnings of the health risks of second-hand smoke, and lobbying from anti-smoking organizations.
After weeks of controversial hesitation to support the bill in its final form, Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt voiced her support of the bill on the same morning MPs voted on it, and she now has estimated that 600,000 people will quit smoking because of the ban.
One of these potential quitters, Kris Ramirez, who has been smoking for 8 years, but has so far been unable to successfully quit her habit, agrees that the ban might help her.
"Tolerance of smoking has gone down because of the health risks, but it's very very hard to quit when you go out to have a drink," she said. "This way quitting will be a lot easier."
Hewitt's representative, Sophie Coppel, said that public reaction to the vote since the bill passed has been positive across the board. She points to cases like Ramirez's as examples of how the ban will benefit smokers and non-smokers alike.
"There has been no formal negative feedback whatsoever since the bill passed," she said. "We have received overwhelmingly positive support (from the public)."
Voice your views >>Criticising The System
Despite strong support from the general public, one reoccurring argument against the ban before the Commons vote was the risk that such new laws would hurt businesses that rely on smokers for a large portion of their income. But, many of London's pub owners and employees believe the new ban will eventually settle economically in their favor.
Simon Pac-Pomarnacki didn't even bother waiting for the bill to pass to ban smoking in his pub. Pac-Pomarnacki is the manager of the Sun in Splendour, another pub in London's Notting Hill neighborhood area. Starting January 1st of this year, smoking at the Splendour has only been allowed in a specially covered and heated outside patio, complete with couches and tables.
"It was pretty obvious that the ban was going to pass anyways, so this way we get ahead of the game," Pac-Pomarnacki said. "Smokers haven't necessarily left, either. Now people are actually enjoying food more."
Pac-Pomarnacki shares the belief with many other London pub employees that business lost from smokers through the ban will be made up through an increase in non-smokers business, as more are expected to visit pubs and clubs more frequently as being inconvenienced by second-hand smoke will no longer be an issue.
Ferney Duero, who bartends at the Old Swan, believes that aside from a rise in complaints initially, the ban shouldn't have a significant impact on business.
"I don't think it will affect business," Duero said. "We got a lot of complaints years ago when we banned smoking in front of the bar, but people get used to it."
While most pubs are publicly looking at the positive aspects of the upcoming ban, some larger brewery companies acknowledge that there will be at least a temporary shot to business profits. Most brewers backed a full ban rather than a ban only on establishments that do not serve food for fear that smokers would take their business to places that still allowed smoking.
"We would have preferred to have implemented a self-regulating code of practice which would have allowed smoking in parts of pubs and not in others," said Michael Hardman of Young's Brewery. "But we lobbied for the total ban when we heard the options."
With acceptance, if not support, coming from both the business and public areas of the issue, those advocating smokers' rights have found themselves arguing a case that even they acknowledge will continue to face restrictions.
"It goes against the British tradition of tolerance, courtesy and common sense," said Simon Clark, director of smoking support group Forest. "The legislation is so severe that if we wanted to set up a club run by smokers for smokers, we would be committing an illegal act."
Clark believes that the government has conflicting interests in the issue.
"If smoking is truly a risk then they should… ban tobacco," he said. "But they will not do that because tobacco taxes bring in so much money every year."
The numbers confirm this theory: HM Treasury claims that tobacco tarrifs brought in UKP8.2 billion in 2004/2005, representing around 1.8% of the total tax revenue, which is quite a lot according to Policy Analyst Andrew Wood.
However, the funds, say Wood, aren't enough to keep the government from stepping in.
"The public-places smoking ban is just one part of what the Department of Health is doing to help smokers quit, including the hugely successful stop smoking services, a ban on tobacco advertising and implementing health warnings on packets of tobacco," he said.
Life Quality Control...
As for Brian back at the Old Swan, he says he believes the ban will probably force him to quit his more than 40-year-old smoking habit. But, he says he is most concerned with just how sweeping the government's control on such issues can be.
"I'll probably end up quitting, which might not be that bad for me after all," he said. "But this is another example of the government wanting to control every aspect of our lives. I don't like the 'Big Brother' attitude."
Pat Allegri
| << Previous |
More on Smoking in London
