The Scottish Government

THOSE IN FAVOUR

THOSE AGAINST LEGISLATION

The main reasons offered by those in favour of legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places are as follows:

The main reasons offered by those who are against the introduction of legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places are:

Health benefits

• Legislation will reduce the exposure of non-smokers to ETS and reduce morbidity and mortality from smoking related diseases amongst the Scottish population in the long term.

• Legislation will increase cessation rates: smokers will find it easier to give up.

• Legislation will reduce smoking prevalence: smokers will smoke less.

Health evidence not sufficient reason

• The link between passive smoking and health is not believed to be sufficient rationale for such legislation.

• If the health risks are so severe then many other harmful things that pose a threat to public health should also be banned.

• The link between ETS and health risks are disputed.

Economic benefit

• Contrary to the concerns of the licensed trade and hospitality sector, the legislation could have a positive impact on trade and business.

• A review of literature has indicated that there is no evidence of a negative impact on licensed trades in countries where legislation has been introduced.

Economic consequences

• There are fears of job losses and business closures in licensed trade and hospitality sector.

• There are fears for losses in the tourist industry.

Rights and choices

• The rights of the non-smoker to a smoke-free environment supersede the rights of smokers to smoke where they wish and affect others by their smoking.

• No one should be subjected to second hand smoke involuntarily.

Rights and choices

• Such legislation is viewed as an infringement of personal choices and rights.

• Smokers should have the right to smoke; non-smokers can choose to avoid smoky places.

• Businesses should be able to decide for themselves.

Strong government

• This will present a strong statement about government's stance on smoking.

• This will improve the public image of the Scottish Executive by demonstrating strong action on a matter of significant public health concern.

Nanny state

• Such legislation is viewed as unnecessary and excessive interference of the government.

• It is driven by a fear of litigation not public health. The government needs to cover itself from future litigation should they not protect the public from the effects of smoking when the dangers are well known.

• However, the government will not ban smoking because they receive tax despite the harm smoking causes.

Protect workers equally

• Public health legislation would have the same effect as health and safety legislation.

• There is a need for guidelines for those working in possible exempted sectors, such as care homes, hospitals and prisons.

Worker protection would be a stronger reason

• The restrictions would be enacted through public health legislation, not workplace legislation, but it is felt that there is greater justification for this type of legislation if it is passed with the aim of protecting the rights of all employees whilst at work.

• The legislation will not cover all workplaces. Employees who are employed in outdoor work contexts will be excluded from the measures thus reinforcing double standards on an employee's right to protection from ETS.

Difficult to enforce half measures or partial bans

• Partial restrictions are confusing and are more difficult to enforce than a total ban. Evidence from abroad confirms this.

• Research has indicated that smokers are more likely to violate restrictions than a ban.

• Partial ban would be difficult to justify on public health grounds.

• Exemptions send a mixed message, can create confusion or result in loop holes or grey areas.

Difficult to introduce and enforce

• It will be very difficult to police and enforce these measures, especially in rural areas.

• It could lead to more violence and loitering outside pubs.

• It could cause practical problems in venues where there is controlled entry, such as night clubs, as smokers move in and out of the building to smoke.

• It is a waste of police resources.

Improvement to public social environments

• It will create a cleaner, healthier environment.

• The removal of discomfort and smell will be of enormous benefit to everyone especially in pubs and restaurants.

Negative impact on community fabric

• The legislation will negatively affect community relations by effectively excluding some people from going to pubs such as elderly individuals who smoke and live alone.

• It will split up non-smokers from their smoking friends during an evening out socialising.

• It could move smoking into the home and expose children to ETS.

Separation and segregation do not work

• Smoke does not respect boundaries.

• Legislation is needed because voluntary measures are ineffective especially in businesses in the hospitality sector.

• Seven out of ten pubs allow smoking throughout despite the introduction of the voluntary charter.

Enough is already being done

• There are already restrictions and bans in place in place in many enclosed public places and these are sufficient.

• Voluntary action through measures such as the voluntary charter could be effective without resorting to legislation.

Ventilation

• There is international scientific evidence to show that no extractor system is capable of removing the harmful carcinogens from the air.

Ventilation

• Ventilation would be an alternative solution.

De-normalise smoking

• By restricting where smoking is permitted, the habit will become socially unacceptable and de-normalised, further discouraging young people in particular from taking it up.

• People will be further encouraged to give up.

Suggested alternative

Discussion

Ventilation

As discussed earlier, whilst some business owners in the licensed trade and hospitality sector have requested this measure, and respondents in the consultation also suggested this, international research evidence indicates that ventilation does not remove the harmful carcinogens from the air. However, the general public does not seem to be aware of the limited effectiveness of ventilation and, along with the licensed trade representatives, often offered this as an alternative option.

Designated or

separated areas in pubs

This is one aspect of the five point plan presented by the SVCSG. Whilst some smokers and pub owners consider these viable alternatives, others believe that they will not work because they are too difficult to enforce. Smoke knows no boundaries therefore designated areas have minimal benefit. Separated areas would have to be air tight to offer protection from ETS. Some respondents noted that designated areas pose a greater risk to the health of staff who are required to service these areas. This would also be impractical in small pubs where space is at a premium.

Suggested alternatives

Discussion

Clear signing of smoking and non-smoking areas

Those favouring the introduction of designated or separated areas also suggested that businesses could have clear signs outside their establishment to indicate what type of smoke-free provision was available. This would ensure that members of the public could make an informed decision before entering premises in which smoking was permitted.

A staged approach

This is another aspect of the five point plan presented by the SVCSG. A staged approach to the introduction of further measures over a number of years was requested to allow pubs, restaurants and other businesses where changes would be necessary to make preparations to minimise any negative consequences. Some respondents to the public consultation also suggested gradually phasing in legislation. The law could allow some exemptions initially but these would be phased out over a period of time. However, this could be more difficult to enforce. Others have asked that a sufficient period of notice be given to allow businesses to prepare themselves.

Voluntary action/

let businesses decide themselves

This was also requested by the licensed trade and hospitality sector who argue that the current voluntary charter is working. However, there is recognition that voluntary action has not been successful and seven in ten pubs still allow smoking throughout their premises. It is felt that landlords and pub or restaurant owners would be reluctant to go smoke-free as they fear the economic consequences for their business especially in a competitive market.

Smoking licences for pubs

Some pubs could apply for a special licence to allow smoking. However, this would result in an uneven playing field where smoking is permitted in some pubs and not others.

Incentives to pubs to

go smoke-free

This was viewed as one way of encouraging pubs and similar venues to go smoke-free through positive reinforcement rather than law. The most commonly suggested incentive was a tax break. Other suggested financial rewards for those going smoke-free. However, there is no evidence to indicate how successful such an approach was likely to be.

Smoke-free around

children

Restrictions could be targeted through legislation in areas where children are likely to be present in order to protect them. However, the general public would not be protected everywhere.

Smoke-free where food

is served

This was viewed by many as an acceptable compromise that would keep both smokers and non-smokers reasonably satisfied. However, given that some pubs also serve food there could be difficulty in allowing pubs to be exempt from legislation. The general public would not protected everywhere.

"Setting specific" smoking policies in some places

This was suggested by some organisations responding to the consultation who stated that serious consideration would need to be given to certain places that double as a home and workplace such as care homes or hotels, prison cells and NHS continuing care facilities in order to strike a balance between the wishes of smoker-clients and the health, safety and comfort of staff and non-smoking clients.

Let local authorities decide

Control at local level could bring decision making closer to local communities. However this would result in variations across Scotland which could be undesirable for businesses. This would also result in inequitable rights or protection for the public (including employees) in different parts of the country.

Ban smoking or introduce further restrictions to accessing tobacco

In several strands of the consultation there was a view that if smoking is so damaging for health it should not be allowed at all or measures should be implemented to restrict access to it. This could include increasing the age limit, increasing taxation on cigarettes, restricting where and when tobacco can be sold, or requiring retail outlets to obtain a licence to sell tobacco.

Increase education and advice

Whatever legislation is passed, many parts of the consultation emphasised continuing educational programmes to increase public awareness of the dangers of passive smoking and it was felt that these should be targeted in particular at children.

Increase anti-smoking advertising

It was suggested that the health risks and the economic costs of smoking could be publicised with emphasis placed on the employers' responsibility to protect their employees from the dangers of smoke. The implications of future employee litigation in the event of employee illness of death as a result of exposure to ETS could be emphasised to employers to encourage them to become smoke-free voluntarily.

Target groups where smoking is prevalent

In the consultation responses there was evident concern about the continued high smoking rates amongst certain sectors of the population particularly low socio-economic groups, and a call for this to be addressed.

Increase cessation support

Cessation support services were viewed as a playing an important role in contributing to making Scotland smoke-free. Health organisations noted that there is likely to be an increased demand for smoking cessation services and suggested that there should be continued monitoring and improvements to smoking cessation services.

Increase enforcement of current tobacco legislation

Effort should continue to enforce existing legislation such as preventing sales to children, tobacco smuggling and so on to ensure that existing legislation continues to contribute to overcoming smoking prevalence and prevents children from gaining access to cigarettes.

Introduce further measures to reduce prevalence and availability of tobacco

A number of further measures were suggested in the responses to the public consultation:

• Encourage the tobacco industry to produce safer cigarettes

• Introduce tobacco licenses for retailers

• Ban advertising / promotion of tobacco

• Stop the promotion of smoking on TV or in films

• Deal with cigarette smuggling / distribution of illegal cigarettes

• Make tobacco products an 'under the counter' item.

• Restrict attractiveness and visibility of tobacco products in all outlets, with cigarettes well out of sight of children

• Remove exemptions for nicotine in tobacco from medicines, food or other consumer legislation

• Discontinue duty-free on tobacco and cigarettes.

Monitor the effectiveness of existing and new legislation

This applies to both existing legislation and new legislation in order to fully assess its impact in terms of both economic outcomes and public health.