Salsa City Forum » News and Chat » Smoking Ban Goes Live Summer 2007

BBC news item

“MPs have voted by huge margins to ban smoking from all pubs and private members’ clubs in England.”

This is English legislation but I assume Wales will follow suit. Very good news I think!

As someone who didn’t smoke at all till the age of 35 I take an interest in all of this debate and the legislation that is inspiring it. I personally smoked a maximum of ten cigarettes per week at the height of my indulgence (‘socially’ as they say whilst working) coupled with the occasional fat Cuban cigar.

I have for the past six months done the sensible thing and given up smoking altogether.

I believe it would be wonderful if people the world over (like me) would give up smoking on their own accord and this were achieved through education and the weight of evidence about the harmful effects on people’s health associated with it.

I do however disagree fundamentally with governments imposing their will on people over what are essentially personal choice issues...

If there is to be a law that is designed to decrease smoking and/or its harmful effect on the rest of us, it should simply be that enclosed spaces i.e. Pubs, Clubs and Restaurants should have to display a sign and apply for a licence to be either a smoking or a non-smoking venue. Thereby giving everyone a free choice as to which venues they frequent... The market place would then (over time) determine the numbers of venues that each group would demand. This should satisfy everyone, as there would be freedom of choice, fairness and equality. I believe this to be both a pragmatic and a logical solution.

I don’t believe this law is about protecting people’s health at all... I do believe however it is about saving the exchequer money as it costs billions to look after people suffering from the effects of ill health due to smoking. If it were about protecting health, the government would simply ban the manufacture and import/export of tobacco products. But that would mean attacking BIG business and all the shareholders who get rich from it. No government would survive that one, after all this country makes billions from exporting cancer sticks.

So for all you proponents/supporters of this illiberal legislation... Just be careful of what type of country you end up living in for the sake of your own personal conveniences! I’m not attacking you here; I am however asking you to think seriously about this.

It is a fair position to take to say that “you don’t wish to breathe in air that has been produced by someone else’s polluting habit”, but it is hypocritical to do so whilst, for instance, driving past school kids on your way to work, or Salsa for that matter, in a vehicle spewing out benzene and goodness knows how many other pollutants or jumping on a plane to your Salsa holiday destination spewing out hundreds of tons of pollutants.

I am confident that you wouldn’t be so altruistic as to give up your own luxuries/indulgences and do this for the health and sake of others. I am equally confident that you would be very displeased if any future legislature forced you to do so.

So what I am asking here is that you think carefully before being so enthusiastic about a government taking away the rights of a significant minority to have the freedom to indulge in their vice.

And please don’t reply by saying your rights are not respected by smokers smoking in your presence as I have already said I am in favour of legislation to force premises to clearly display what type of venue they are... This would therefore make it a matter of individual free choice as to which venue you personally frequent.

“The Government” has been markedly reluctant to introduce this measure, in fact, it was the MPs who pushed it through, in a free vote, reacting to pressure from their constituents.

Your proposed legislation is interesting, good luck with your campaign. Others have been campaigning for and support a different policy.

Widespread smoking, in fact, is a net revenue earner for the Exchequer in many ways. Besides the huge tax bite on cigarettes. It suits the Exchequer for people to pay tax and pension contributions their whole lives and then die in their mid-sixties of heart-attack, cancer, emphysema etc. The cost of their treatment is far outweighed by the saving of 10-20 years of pension payments. You’re right that governments the world over have to be pushed to limit smoking. This is another of the reasons why.

This is not an illiberal measure; it’s a sensible measure. It’s a fact that things that may have been acceptable or tolerated in the past, slavery, child-labour, date-rape etc, become unacceptable or intolerable over time.

Vehicle pollution and wasteful casual air-travel are important issues and I have views on them but they are beside the point of this discussion.

You may be confident that I would resist changing my behaviour if it harmed others; I am confident that you are wrong. I always try to be aware of the effects of my behaviour on others.

You’ve banged on about “freedom” in connection with this at inordinate length here and in other places but you never acknowledge that freedom is often a case of opposing freedoms. For instance, my freedom to play loud salsa all night impinges on my neighbour’s freedom to get a good night’s sleep. I fully support smokers’ rights to smoke. I would never support the outlawing of tobacco or the banning of smoking in public outside. But I and the majority want the freedom to go out and socialise without having to breathe the smoke of a foolish and inconsiderate minority and now we’re going to get it. I have a sneaking suspicion you’re so passionate about this because as a promoter you think a smoking ban might hit you in the pocket.

While I don’t agree with el Diablito it’s hardly fair to accuse him of dubious motives.

Though actually I think that the smoking ban might be good for salsa promoters: Phil (himself a smoker) has had a positive response to the smoking ban at the Claverton Rooms from both smokers and non-smokers. I suspect that quite a few people are put off salsa because of the levels of smoke in many venues.

According to the BBC it’s likely that Wales will have a smoking ban next summer, ie about the same time as England.

Hugh clearly like me you have a strong opinion on this subject and there is nothing wrong with that but I think you make many assumptions here followed by an extremely unfair attack on myself and my views...

For one I don’t believe that there has been a campaign by vast numbers of constituents to lobby MP’s for a complete smoking ban in public places (Nightclubs in my view are not public spaces anyway you enter paying a fee under certain rules of entry one of which could be smoking or non-smoking.) I believe it has been driven by a vociferous few with the backing of the exchequer.

I am not and do not intend to campaign for the views I hold but I do intend to air them in this forum as you brought the subject up and I have an opinion on it! My position is (and remember I am not a smoker) that I do mourn the loss of freedom that laws such as these bring. I would argue the same if the government tried to ban drinking alcohol in public places on the grounds of public health and my point was that you might also mourn the loss of freedom when and if a law such as this affects your indulgencies.

Until recently many people (especially those on lower incomes – the greater number of smokers) died on or around the retirement age anyway so the payment of pensions is not relevant to my position. Anyhow, money for pensions paid in by previous generations is not held in a bank account, it has already been spent, Money for pensions being paid out today is generated from taxes being raised today. It is naïve to think otherwise therefore the drain on the national health system by treating people with smoking related illnesses today is as I said an issue! My position would be that if not enough revenue is being raised then the government should increase taxes on tobacco to exactly match the cost to the NHS.

Banning smoking in public spaces is a sensible measure in the respect that, it will I’m sure, improve the Nations health and this is the one argument that I don’t take issue with. Because of this point it is a difficult argument to make but it is not the argument that is relevant to this debate. In any case the logical progression of this argument would be to ban smoking outright protecting children in the home. Children unlike service workers or punters in Pubs/Clubs don’t have any choice if their parents decide to smoke in the home.

The points you make about Slavery, child-labour, date-rape etc even playing Salsa at a volume to upset your neighbours are not even close comparisons for the reason that each of these affect innocent parties who don’t have a choice in the matter!

None of those people who argue for a complete ban ever answer the straight forward question in this debate that if there are two enclosed spaces one offering a non-smoking environment and the other a smoking environment how is your freedom being affected to your detriment by having such a choice? I await a response.

I assume that those people who take the view that polluting the air we all breathe is wrong, do so on principle... Therefore the points I make regarding Vehicle pollution and wasteful casual air-travel are entirely relevant to this discussion, in that you either have or do not have a principle where supporting the imposition of law on others for your convenience is concerned.

I ask you once again to explain as you have raised the point

How is your freedom to go out and socialise without having to breathe the smoke of a foolish and inconsiderate minority compromised if there were clearly signed smoking and non-smoking venues?

Finally to suggest that my passion to defend the rights of all (including you to have choice in this matter) is about my desire to maintain a financial benefit is extremely unfair and I believe weakens your argument.

Well, I’ve said my piece and I’ve really very little more to add. Your point about smoking in the home around children is a good one but what can be done? We have to assume parents will do their best not to injure their children.

The question of whether a smoking ban will affect your bottom line is, it seems to me, the dog that didn’t bark in your argument. You drag lots of unrelated stuff in but don’t mention this issue; you must have an opinion on it. As Tom said, it’s far from cut and dried.

Just one more example of things that were acceptable in the past but are less so now is drunk driving. Up until the 'sixties drunk driving, though illegal, was perfectly socially acceptable. Even in the 'eighties executive contracts would have a clause like “You will be subject to dismissal if you are convicted of a criminal offence, except, of course, drunk driving”. But slowly, over the years, drunk driving has become less and less acceptable. It will be the same with smoking in bars. In a few years we will have forgotten what all the fuss was about.

Wow this is great! I love debates like this!! Particularly as you Hugh always seem to want to be right and just won’t back down!! Not even enough to just accept the view of another person.

I personally agree with el Diablito that fundamentally, to smoke or not to smoke is a choice just as everything else in this life is.

I don’t think a complete ban is necessarily fair on those who choose to smoke, how hard is it for us foolish and inconsiderate people to go into a smoking venue as opposed to a non smoking venue.

What happened to choice? Not just with smoking but with life, it seems the government wants us to live our lives a certain way.

I think your comment to El Diablito about losing money was completely below the belt and un called for.

Gentlemen, life is too short to be arguing about things like this, we should be out there fighting for things that really matter... for example Hugh, its nice that you presume parents look after their kids but a lot don’t... 1 in 4 kids are abused, out of these many die. Is this acceptable?? Is it becoming more acceptable in todays world...

What about the news that british soldiers were filmed beating up young boys and 70% of the British public said they shouldn’t be prosecuted... is that acceptable? Is it ok nowadays to beat innocent people and film it...?

There are so many more important things happening that are worth fighting for...

Perhaps there should be a compltee drinking ban too... I personally don’t drink but then I’ve seent he destruction it causes. Now we have 24 hour drinking laws, great, lets sewe how many more people get in cars and kill innocent people or go home and get angry and beat hell out of their partners, kids etc or end up dying because of it... its just as dangerous and even more socailly destructive than smoking will ever be.

Anyway, the point of that whole rant, was that we have a choice, sometimes we make the wrong ones but it should be up to the individual to make it.

I didn’t say parents don’t sometimes damage their children. I know it happens. I meant we have to assume parents will do their best for their children until there is evidence to the contrary. What’s the alternative?

I know we have to assume that parents will do their best but tragically many of them don’t and there is normally not always much evidence until its too late.

The alternative is just being aware... not just of that but of life adn how evil, for want of a better word, it is becoming.

I just think we need to be more aware of our surroundings and look out for others and treat others as we want to be treated.

My position is clear and I always answer a question when asked

I disagree that the stuff I drag in is unrelated for me it is about principle and therefore correct to make the point and also to ask the question, which I note, people who share your view choose not to answer. The question being... Where do you stand on the principle of your right to pollute the air of others whilst calling for a complete ban on smoking in public places?

To answer the following accusation:

(You’ve banged on about “freedom” in connection with this at inordinate length here and in other places but you never acknowledge that freedom is often a case of opposing freedoms)

To set the record straight even though I believe I have made it clear all along what my principles are... I don’t believe that anyone has the right to do unto others what it is they would not have done to themselves.

Or to put it another way I don’t believe you should affect innocent or vulnerable parties by your actions and with respect to the above debate, the clearly signed ‘two choice’ option that I proposed clearly meets with my principle.

Supporting an outright ban on smoking in public places whilst driving/flying around polluting the environment for others clearly does not meet with yours.

Finally to the added example of drink driving, as with all the other examples you cite, inocent parties are affected and this is the clear distinction that you are failing to recognise! As far as I’m concerned it is not only socially unacceptable but morally unacceptable to drink and drive as it endangers the lives of others who are innocent and who crucially have little or no choice in the matter and therefore the example is not comparable.

Smoking on the other hand, in a licensed and clearly marked venue, is a matter of personal choice and a risk shared equally with those who also understand the rules of entry and accept those risks as a consequence.

In a free and liberal democracy a persons life choices (so long as they do not detrimentally affect others) should never be at the dictate of one set of people over another.