Smoking in Public Places
A Consultation on Reducing Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Report of Regional and Area Events
GREENOCK, 15 SEPTEMBER 2004
Introduction
Everyone was welcomed to the meeting and thanked for attending. The background to the consultation and SCF's ground rules for meetings were explained.
Discussion
The discussion was structured around the questions asked in the Scottish Executive's leaflet about the proposal to legislate against smoking in public places.
Overall, there were clear differences of opinion amongst those present. The points made in relation to each question are reported below.
Having considered the health risks associated with passive smoking, do you think that further action needs to be taken to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke?
On a vote, the views on this question, from those who responded, were:
Comments
There are already enough restrictions on smoking. Anything further would be excessive.
Smoke drifts. Non-smokers shouldn't have to breathe others' smoke.
In discussing the 2 points above, different opinions emerged over whether it is now possible to smoke at the doors of buildings where smoking is already not allowed inside e.g. hospitals.
The current voluntary system hasn't done the job.
There are few places in Inverclyde where it is possible to eat without experiencing others' smoke.
Businesses are worried that they will lose custom.
If people do not want to experience others' smoke, they should not go to venues where smoking is allowed.
Businesses should make their own decisions and people should respect the policy each business adopts.
Businesses should have Health & Safety policies.
Whilst not being against freedom, there is no safe level of tobacco smoke.
Why are there pressures from some sources to legalise cannabis, but at the same time pressure to ban smoking?
Smokers are badly treated.
In Amsterdam there are separate cafes catering for smoking, non-smoking and cannabis.
There was some support for this type of provision, although it opened up a further discussion on the position of employees, in which the points of view were:
If you don't want to breathe the smoke don't apply for the job
In areas where there is a shortage of jobs there is little choice
If 20 customers want to smoke, why should their choice be denied for one worker who doesn't?
We need to be sure that children can go out and not experience smoke. Children cannot exercise choice and they should not be put at risk.
The needs of people with asthma must be considered.
Would you support a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free?
Comments
In considering the effect of a ban, particular attention was given to pubs and to the experience of a ban in Ireland. There was a clear difference of opinion between, on the one hand, those who felt that the Irish ban has had a detrimental effect on the licensed trade, that people will stop going to places where they can't smoke and that there would be substantial job losses in Scotland; and on the other hand those who argued that any decline in trade will 'bounce back' as non-smokers return to pubs. The following related points were made:
There has been a high compliance rate in Ireland
It will be unenforceable in rural areas.
The Irish ban hasn't been going for long enough to show whether it is successful.
People just smoke outside so there is exposure to smoke at the door.
It is not fair to expect elderly people to go outside to smoke in the winter.
Eating areas should be smoke-free, and hotels etc should have a smoking room to avoid smoke drift.
The smoke experienced by workers is not so bad if smoking is enjoyed away from the bar. How about a ban at the bar?
Both these options still leave the problem of staff having to go into or be near the smoking areas.
Limiting smoking to taking place away from the bar may be more comfortable but the harmful elements are odourless.
There should be a ban in all places where children go. Children learn by example, so this would also help to bring about a culture change to benefit the next generation.
In Australia a similar ban has reduced the number of smokers.
Ventilation should be used.
Ventilation is not good enough to clear the air of all harmful elements in tobacco smoke.
The venue in which the consultation meeting was taking place has recently introduced a ban on smoking. This has had a good response and been accepted. People will go outside, use a smoking shelter or designated area.
There will still be a problem at the doors.
Smoking shelters are degrading. There should be a room set aside for smokers.
It was suggested that cafes may experience more problems with loss of business than pubs, although not everyone agreed.
It was noted that although there were differences over whether smoking should be banned in pubs, restaurants and cafes, there was general agreement that there should be a ban in other public places.
There were opposing points of view on whether a ban on smoking in public places would reduce smoking overall:
A ban would stop social smokers smoking, which is to the good.
A ban will lead to less smoking.
A ban would not help people stop smoking.
There was discussion of the extent to which a ban could or would be implemented. It was commented that bus drivers smoke, against the rules, even though smoking is banned on their buses. The following specific comments were made:
Who would enforce a ban?
Other comments made were:
Obesity is damaging, but we don't talk about banning eating.
There is a difference, in that smoke harms other people.
Smoking is a matter of personal choice.
Smokers feel discriminated against/
Why pick on smoking? The fear is exaggerated. Everything gives you cancer.
There are 60 carcinogens in tobacco smoke.
GPs smoke.
They should stop.
Few doctors now smoke.
If a law was introduced, do you think there should be any exemptions to it?
Comments
There should be no exemption for places where people eat.
We must accept that rural pubs will not comply.
Small pubs don't have enough space for smoking and non-smoking areas. Therefore the only way to have a level playing field is for all pubs to be subject to a ban.
There is an issue regarding carers going into clients' homes as their place of work.
Prisons should be exempt, not least because any ban would probably be beaten by tobacco smuggling, although there might be problems with 2-person cells.
Exemption for police cells was suggested although not everyone agreed.
In nursing homes, older people with mobility problems should be able to smoke in their own rooms or in a smoking room, at the management's discretion.
It was felt that there should generally be no smoking in hospitals. There was a difference of opinion on whether there should be smoking rooms provided.
If it is decided not to introduce a law, what more could be done to encourage individual businesses to take voluntary action to become smoke-free or to provide more smoke-free provision?
Suggestions
Guidelines and policies regarding smoking.
Help for small businesses in making policies.
Financial help.
Comments
A smoke free environment will save businesses costs of cleaning, staff smoking breaks etc.
Pubs should have to have smoke-free provision and ventilation as a condition of their licences, and the non-smoking area should be larger than the smoking area.
What else could we do to reduce people's exposure to second-hand smoke?
Comments
The attitudes of young people should be ascertained from a study of a cross-section of secondary schools.
In deciding what action to take, it should be borne in mind that the common factor in influencing children's attitudes is their parents.
It is difficult for people to stop smoking, so a ban won't stop them.
Smokers who want to stop should be helped, like drug addicts who are trying to stop.
The Scottish Executive should put its money where its mouth is and provide help for people to stop smoking.
More help is needed, and services are being developed to help people stop. Appropriate services are being developed but there is, for example, only 1_ smoking cessation workers for the whole of Inverclyde.
Ill-health has causes other than smoking
Less smoking will reduce the number of illnesses and raise life-expectancy.
People should get smoking cessation support in hospitals, nursing homes, prisons etc
Support is good but it shouldn't be compulsory.
Fear works too!
Education should be provided, but not scaremongering.
Smoking areas should be provided.
Teachers shouldn't smoke.
The discussion identified differences in the help given e.g. on patches, between GPs and specialist services. This led to some questioning of how financial decisions are made by Health Boards, details of services/expenditure and the education of GPs on smoking cessation. Other specific comments made were:
Health is more important than cost
Any other views about smoking in public places?
Comments
The consultation is not balanced.
Taxes might go up if fewer cigarettes are sold.
People don't save the money they have from giving up smoking. They spend it on different things.