Smoking ban

From Freepedia

Image:No smoking sign.svg

Smoking bans are government prohibitions on tobacco smoking in public or quasi-public indoor areas such as offices, restaurants, hotels, or even outdoor public areas such as parks and sports stadiums. Total bans on smoking are rare, although in most jurisdictions the sale of tobacco to minors, or minors under a certain age, is prohibited. Such laws have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with legislators citing health statistics that show tobacco smoking is often fatal for the smokers and also sometimes for those subjected to passive smoking (also known as secondhand smoke). However, some countries such as Spain hardly enforce their smoking prohibitions, and continue to profit from tax on tobacco products. Tobacco advertising is also banned, or at least restricted, in most countries.

Contents

Legislative action

Bans in public places or bars/restaurants

Countries

States or provinces

  • California, 1998 - banned in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants.
  • Kerala, India, 1999 - banned in public places by order of the High-Court of Kerala deciding in a public interest litigation.
  • Delaware, November 2002 - banned in all public buildings, including workplaces, bars, restaurants, and casinos.
  • Florida, 1 July 2003 - banned in all workplaces, except private homes, tobacco shops, designated rooms at motels and hotels, and stand alone bars with no more than 10% of revenue from food sales.
  • New York, July 2003 - banned in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, pool halls, and company cars, except Indian casinos and "cigar bars". This state law is similar to the March 2003 New York City law.
  • Maine, January 2004 - banned in bars. Smoking has been banned in restaurants since 2000.
  • Connecticut, 1 April 2004 - banned in bars, restaurants, and workplaces with more than five employees.
  • Idaho, July 2004 - banned in restaurants, retail stores, sports venues, child care centers, schools, and hospitals.
  • Massachusetts, July 2004 - banned in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars, except private clubs and cigar bars.
  • Rhode Island, 1 March 2005 - banned in almost all indoor workplaces, except some gambling facilities.
  • Montana, 1 October 2005 - banned in public buildings.
  • New South Wales, 2005 - banned in all public enclosed spaces, including restaurants and areas serving food. Half the area of pubs, bars, and clubs have to be smoke-free; a total ban is expected to be introduced in the future.
  • Washington, 2005 - an initiative is on the November ballot to ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and non-tribal casinos. It is expected to pass but not without opposition in the courts. In the latter months of 2003 and early months of 2004, the Washington Supreme Court overturned a smoking ban in Pierce County, Washington. A statewide ban is expected to hold because it does not discriminate by counties.
  • Scotland, 26 March 2006 - a ban in enclosed public places.
  • Ontario, 1 June 2006 - a ban in bars and restaurants. The Smoke-Free Ontario Act will prohibit smoking in all workplaces and indoor public spaces. It will also ban separately-ventilated designated smoking rooms (DSRs), which are currently permitted in Toronto, Peel Region, and some other jurisdictions.
  • Northern Ireland, April 2007 - a ban in all enclosed public places.
  • Australia: All Australian states and territories have banned smoking in enclosed public places, particularly workplaces and restaurants.

Municipalities

Outdoor smoking bans

Image:Summerfairesign.JPG

In some places with long-established strict indoor smoking bans, many areas have begun to experiment with outdoor smoking bans in specific contexts, especially in public or government-owned spaces. Not surprisingly, the US state of California, already famous for its tough anti-smoking history, has been one of the most concentrated areas of innovative outdoor smoking policies in recent times, although it is not the only area to have outdoor-smoking bans. The advent of outdoor smoking bans has been seen as one of the final frontiers in the anti-smoking movement.

An additional motivation for the ban on outdoor smoking is litter reduction. Beach cleanup efforts often find the majority of beach trash to be discarded cigarettes and butts. Besides being unsightly and requiring cleanup resources, these discarded tobacco products can leak unwanted chemicals into the environment.

  • In the state of California, outdoor smoking is banned within 20 feet (6 m) of all public building entrances, exits, "operable windows," and air intakes. This applies to all public and state-owned buildings, including all buildings part of such large entities as the 10-campus University of California system, the 23-campus California State University system, and the 109-campus California Community Colleges system. Many California public universities take tougher stances than the statewide required minimum, either by extending no-smoking zones past 20 feet (6 m) or severely restricting outdoor smoking to specific areas, such as California State University, Fresno, which prohibits all indoor and outdoor smoking on its campus except for in several designated outdoor zones.
  • Smoking is prohibited within 25 feet (8 m) of playgrounds, sandboxes, or "tot-lots" throughout the state of California.
  • Solana Beach, California, a small coastal town in North San Diego County, California enacted a total ban (with no designated smoking areas) on smoking on its beaches in 2003, the first community to have done so in the Continental United States. Many other coastal communities in California have since enacted similar bans, although policies regarding the scope and enforcement of such laws vary. Other coastal California cities and communities with beach-smoking bans include Capitola, Carpinteria, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Newport Beach, San Clemente, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica.
  • Some beaches in Sydney, Australia have smoking bans in place.
  • In the Australian state of Queensland, smoking is prohibited within four metres of entrances to public buildings, near playgrounds, outdoor areas where food is served, and at all major sports stadiums.
  • In 2004 San Francisco, California approved one of the strictest outdoor-smoking bans in the world to-date, prohibiting smoking in all city-owned parks and plazas as well as public sports facilities. Other smaller California cities have outdoor bans in city-owned places but none is as far-reaching as the new San Francisco policy, which came into effect June 1, 2005.
  • Cities such as Davis, California and Berkeley, California ban all outdoor smoking at outdoor restaurants and food venues.
  • Edmonton, Alberta banned all outdoor patio smoking at bars, restaurants and casinos on July 1, 2005.
  • Selected wards in Tokyo, Japan prohibit smoking on the streets. This ban is enforced and violators are fined. In response, smoking cafes have opened to provide a space for smokers.
  • Ocean City, NJ prohibits smoking except for very restricted areas on its 2.5 mile boardwalk due to a fire caused by a discarded cigarette butt.

Other bans

  • South Africa which passed the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act in 2001
  • Turkmenistan, under decree from President for life Saparmurat Niyazov, has banned the chewing of tobacco.
  • On December 17, 2004, in the Kingdom of Bhutan, a national ban on the sale of tobacco products went into effect. Smoking in all public places in Bhutan became illegal on February 22, 2005.
  • California has designated certain areas, such as all public schools and even prisons, as "tobacco-free" zones, where the possession of tobacco in any form (whether by students, parents, teachers, or others) is strictly prohibited indoors and outdoors. The sale and advertisement of tobacco is banned within 1000 feet (300 m) of educational facilities.

Other restrictions

  • In other countries, such as France, Germany, the Netherlands and Russia, bans enacted earlier allow for smoking sections in restaurants, as well as possible special rooms for use by smokers in other workplaces (though many employers prefer not to incur the costs of building and maintaining such rooms, leaving smoking employees to go smoke outside).
  • Many California communities have established smoke-free registries for private residential buildings, especially apartments. The policies may range from complexes where smoking is entirely prohibited (whether inside private dwellings or outside), or where certain sections of dwellings may be designated as smoking dwellings. While still a relatively new phenomenon, many California cities and communities such as Los Angeles have worked with the American Lung Association, which has been active in promoting anti-smoking policies in private residential buildings. Not surprisingly, such measures are somewhat controversial. While pro-smokers' rights groups have been vocal against such policies, most California cities allow landlords to place anti-smoking regulations at will because such stringent anti-smoking rules are in a context of landowners' private property. Also, anti-discrimination laws do not cover smokers, as smoking is not considered an inalienable right. According to the Los Angeles Daily News 82 % of Californian apartment-dwellers favor smoking restrictions in their buildings.

Proposals

  • On 16 November 2004 a Public Health white paper proposed a smoking ban in almost all public places in England. Smoking restrictions would be phased in, with a ban on smoking in NHS and government buildings by 2006, in enclosed public places by 2007, and pubs, bars and restaurants (except pubs not serving food) by the end of 2008.[9] On 26 October 2005, after days of opposition and debates within the Cabinet, the government announced that it would continue with its plans. [10]
  • Legislation enacting a statewide smoking ban on all California beaches and in all private vehicles with small children failed by narrow margins in 2004 but similar legislation is expected to resurface in the near future.

Effects

A 1992 document from Phillip Morris, 'Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence', summarises the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11 per cent to 15 per cent less than average and quit at a rate that is 84 % higher than average."[12]

Views and opinions

Opposition

In the U.S., smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued they would suffer disastrously from smoking bans, with many of them going broke. However, the experiences of Delaware, New York, California, and Florida have shown that many such businesses do survive. Still, stiff opposition to these smoking bans from smokers, bar owners, and even some non-smokers (such as libertarians), is still prevalent in these four states. Yet some operators of indoor venues are banning smoking by staff and/or customers for self-interest or commercial reasons.

In Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans, along with a minority of pub-goers. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intent of protecting others, particularly workers, from passive smoking. There was widespread opposition before the ban; however, promoters of the ban countered accusations that the ban would interfere with personal freedom by phrasing their argument in terms of workplace safety and workers' rights, rather than public health. By and large, since the ban's introduction it has become accepted, due in part to "outdoor" arrangements at many pubs (involving heated areas with shelters). It is viewed as a success by the government and much of the public, and many other European governments are considering similar legislation. Public health lobbyists in Northern Ireland have lobbied for a similar ban there also.

Total ban dispute

Recently there has been a growing desire by some anti-smoking activists and health officials to prohibit the sale and consumption of all tobacco products, regardless of where they are used. US Surgeon General Richard Carmona stirred some controversy in June 2003 when he publicly called for all tobacco products to be banned nationwide. A similar view is held by the British medical journal The Lancet, which called for a similar total ban in the UK in the December 2003 issue. In November 2004, Bhutan became the first country to ban tobacco sale completely. There is a 100% import tax on tobacco products brought into the country for personal consumption.

Such a comprehensive ban in these countries may face considerable problems. The experience of the US prohibition of alcohol in the early 1900s shows that banning a harmful but popular product leads to widespread drug trafficking, which generates crime. Possibly more relevant is the fact that several US states have banned cigarettes in the past, yet all such bans were abandoned just as was Prohibition. Iowa banned cigarette manufacture and sales in 1897; Tennessee, Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan were other states that banned cigarette sales at various times between 1897 and 1907.

A more recent anti-alcohol campaign in the USSR in 1985-1987 led to considerable public health benefits despite large scale illegal home-brewery of alcohol. Despite the potential benefits, it is argued that such a ban would violate personal freedoms, particularly if it is considered a victimless crime. The main arguments against smoking being a victimless crime are the health risks of passive smoking and increased health costs borne by all members of society. However, whether smoking actually increases health care costs is a matter of debate among experts. Certain studies suggest that complete smoking cessation might actually result in an increase in total health care costs in the long run [13]. This seemingly paradoxical possibility stems from the fact that nonsmokers live longer on average and can thus incur higher health care costs at advanced ages. Furthermore, the argument for smoking being a victimless crime is that no adults are subjected to it without their consent.

The debate over whether a total ban should be implemented is still ongoing.

See also

External links

Retrieved from "http://en.freepedia.org/Smoking_ban.html"


Views
Personal tools
In other languages
Similar Links