« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Smoking in Public Places
A Consultation on Reducing Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Towards a Smoke-free Environment:
Lessons from Home and Abroad - Report of a National Conference
9 September 2004
Summing Up
Professor Hastings briefly summed up the day's proceedings from his personal viewpoint. He began by acknowledging that everyone who had attended the conference had done so for genuine reasons. He said that evidence was crucial for making progress and that we could not rely on anecdote. He was of the opinion that a lot of progress had been made, despite the difficulties of the challenge.
Firstly, there was agreement that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is bad for you. Whilst there was debate about the level of harm that it caused, there had been no disagreement that it is health damaging. Secondly there is a consensus that our ultimate goal is to make Scotland smoke free. The licensed trade's proposals for example, as put forward by Stuart Ross, concern
how, not
whether, we can get there.
Prof Hastings then outlined three options on how to proceed.
1.
Ventilation. He said that no one could now accept that this would protect people from the effects of ETS, not even the tobacco industry claimed that it did. Arguably, he suggested, it is actually worse than useless, in that it takes away the smell and visibility of the smoke, but leaves many toxins, giving people a false sense of security.
2.
Partial bans. Prof Hastings expressed his doubts and concerns about the practicalities of introducing legislation on this basis, e.g. how do you legislate for a smoking ban 3 feet from the bar, or for smoke-free floor-space knowing that ETS does not confine itself to designated areas?
3.
A complete ban. Prof Hastings' personal take on the evidence presented was that this is the best solution. However, it raises the very important question of whether it would hurt jobs and businesses. He emphasised that this is not a question of health interests versus the licensed trade. Business and prosperity are good for health. Unemployment is bad for health.
But, looking at the hard evidence from New York and from California, there is no an impact on business. The only studies which suggest that there is, are funded by the tobacco industry and are of poor quality. But if all that is still not convincing, then evidence from Ireland should help to guide us.
Coming from a marketer's perspective, Prof Hastings highlighted the business opportunities going smoke-free can offer - 70% of the population don't smoke; smoke-free is popular (especially after it's been legislated for) and smoky pubs are unpopular. He urged the hospitality sector to argue their case, but also to recognise the opportunities. The only industry we knew will be hurt by progress on this issue is the tobacco industry - bans reduce consumption and smoking prevalence. The tobacco industry had lost its credibility because its predictions of the past had not come true. It needed other people to fight its fights for them. Prof Hastings urged the licensed trade to beware, and not to take up the tobacco industry's case for them - and the litigation which would surely come in due course.
Prof Hastings concluded by saying that this was an issue about improving life in Scotland. Taking smoke out of public places will improve people's health, offer opportunities to business and give Scotland a lead in the UK. He urged Mr McCabe to buy himself a flak-jacket and to go for it!
« Previous | Contents | Next »