The Great Cigarette debate :: Wessex Scene Online

The Great Cigarette debate

20th April 2006

Rate this story

Related Links

From the summer of 2007 smoking will be banned in all public places in the UK. Is this a good thing? And how will it affect students at Southampton? The Wessex Scene set out to investigate...
FOR: According to the Southampton Smoke Free Task Group, 35% of Southampton residents smoke, a figure 10% higher than the national average. As more young people smoke than old, it is easy to see how this could be in part attributed to the city’s large student population. There are alarming consequences of this, with over 44,000 people being admitted to hospital with smoking-related conditions in the South East in 2003/4, at an estimated cost to the health service of Ł238 million. The inescapable fact is that some of these people are non-smokers who have been affected by those that do.

Our human rights dictate that we should not have to endure things that unnecessarily pose a danger to our health; it is particularly the case that people should not have to work in such an environment. Therefore, a ban such as this one is inevitable in a civilised society. Smoking is legal and so people have a right to choose whether to do so or not, but it is unethical to subject those around you to health risks as well. Smoking in a public place is antisocial because it affects more than just the user, and this is always the case, unlike alcohol, for example.

It is also evident that a full ban is much more appropriate than a partial one; it is crucial to establish a level playing field. A ban of this sort would increase health inequalities among staff. Furthermore, a ban that exempted pubs that serve food would be worse for the poor; research has shown a strong link between wealthy areas and pubs selling food. A partial ban would mean poorer people being subjected to more second-hand smoke and therefore higher health risks as smokers choose to go to establishments where they are able to light up.

Smoking bans have already proved successful in Ireland and New York; less people are smoking, and the adverse effect on trade predicted has not come to fruition. Canada has one of the lowest levels of smoking in the world, and it is commonly concluded that this is the result of tough anti-smoking measures in recent years.

The new legislation aims to achieve the same effect in this country. After all, no one likes to go out to a pub for a drink and come back stinking of cigarette smoke. - Christopher Dean

AGAINST: The banning of smoking in public places is yet another example of this government’s intrusion into every aspect of our lives. A prerequisite for a liberal society is freedom of choice, something that this ban takes away from us. Labour pledged in their manifesto to introduce a partial ban, exempting pubs that serve food and private members’ clubs, so the introduction of a full ban represents another broken promise, just like Top Up Fees.

This government would be better off improving the standard of education of people from an early age about the dangers of smoking, rather than banning it – the latter does not address the root of the smoking problem in this country. Statistics show that rates of teenage pregnancy are lower in countries with a more progressive sex education programme in schools; it is easy to see how this analogy translates on to smoking.

Furthermore, the ban threatens the environment. Smokers will have to go outside to have a cigarette, which will inevitably lead to a huge increase in greenhouse gas emitting patio heaters. Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions are already up by an estimated 380,000 tonnes per year due to such devices, and it is claimed that using one of these heaters for just two hours produces the same amount of carbon dioxide as an average car does in a day.

Of five local pubs frequented by students surveyed, four landlords thought the new legislation would have a negative impact on trade. As a result of this, prices may have to go up, hitting the hard-up student in the pocket. A knock-on effect could ensue; it would be a difficult balance to strike. A fall-off in trade has already been observed in places that have recently implemented a ban like Ireland and New York.

The new laws may mean people smoke less, but it is still addictive and limiting opportunities to smoke could well lead to people smoking more at home, in many cases exposing children to increased levels of smoke.

And if people do go outside, the noise pollution is bound to cause considerable grief in residential areas, something that is particularly pertinent in Southampton given the amount of young people and the recent frictions concerning the Cube. - Jessica Crick