Public Smoking Ban In The UK

Smoking is a major income to the government; it brings in about à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½10 billion pounds annually. The government has proceeded to raise the tax rate of tobacco above the inflation rate from 1993 to the present day, this was implemented to help reduce consumption further. This policy has resulted that tax on tobacco in the UK is amongst the highest in the world and far ahead of any of those in other EU member states. For example the price of a typical pack of cigarettes in the UK is currently à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½5.54, whilst in Belgium the price is about à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½2.70 and in Latvia they retail at a mere 42p. The cost to the NHS of smoking related illnesses is generally not believed to outweigh the income the government makes out of tobacco sales. The government is being very hypocritical of themselves because a large amount of public money comes from the tax of cigarettes but at the same time the government is trying to stop people form smoking by banning people to smoke in public places and also with adverts on television urging people to stop smoking. There has been a lot of opposition to the smoking ban of which the arguments have been that the ban will be disastrous to small pubs that rely on smokers to keep their business afloat. Small pub landlords have said that they will loose vital trade from people who normally go out to the pub to have a smoke and a pint who now will stay at home instead and smoke and drink there. A knock on effect of the economic down turn is perceived to be a loss of jobs across the industry and rising pub prices as landlords would have no choice but to subsidise their loss of business by increasing prices. The closure of pubs would ultimately result in a lack of choice for the customer. People who are still against the ban argue alternative methods of how to reduce the health impact of passive smoking. The introduction of the use of ventilation is regarded by some as an adequate solution on its own. Some respondents are strongly of the opinion that ventilation removes all the harmful effects of smoking from the air. Designated smoking areas in public places are have previously been used before the smoking ban came into effect in various shopping malls, restaurants and clubs. People did not complain about these smoking areas, of which people who wanted to smoke could do so inside out of the way of other people who did not want to smoke. People against the smoking ban argue that separate designated smoking areas with good ventilation is a better alternative then banning smoking in public places altogether. The government doesn't want to stop there with banning smoking. They have almost banned the rights of people to smoke in their own car. The law now states that if the driver is smoking and does not have full control of the vehicle the driver can be prosecuted for smoking while driving. This is an extension of the current law which is that the driver must have full control of the vehicle at all times. What I do not understand is that why the government feels that they now have to have a separate law to cover smoking while driving, does that not also come under the law that states that the driver must have full control of the vehicle at all times? There have now also been talks that a law is trying to be passed to stop adults smoking in their own vehicle while a child is present, is this just saying to the nation that they cannot look after their own children? Ibi from Birmingham thinks that banning smoking is a way for the government to take all of our fun away. â€Å"This seems ok but doesnt anybody else worry about this being a slippery slope. First, no smoking in public places, then no smoking at all, then no drinking, no shouting, no laughing, no talking and no fun. And once this is all done they will find something else to ban. And im a non smoker.† Howard John Dell from Chelmsford agrees that the money made by the government from smokers is too high to ignore the rights of one of its biggest money makers. â€Å"I do not agree with a total ban on smoking. It is my right to smoke and the government make a considerable amount of money from my smoking through taxes which easily pays for any health cost tot he NHS.† Colin McEwan from Edinburgh agrees that the smoking ban could have bigger economic consequences than we think. â€Å"The Scottish government is drafting its own regulations regarding smoking and seems to be bent on a total ban. This, in my view is a step too far at this time. I work in Ireland where such a ban has, I believe, reduced pub sales substantially in some areas and has cost many jobs. I have no issue with the argument that people must not be subjected to passive smoking. But the alternatives, such as designated smoking areas with proper ventilation have not been properly considered. Sure it will be difficult to implement properly but the ‘Ban it everywhere' brigade does not seem to be interested in the logic †¦ only the principle.† The smoking ban seams to be supported by many more non-smokers than smokers. I think that because smokers are a minority here, the majority have won their case outright. There seams to be more suitable alternative methods than the banning of smoking in public places completely. I think that the banning of smoking in public places was a policy set up by the government to try and win the votes of the majority of people because people had lost faith in the current government because of the currently unsuccessful invasion of Iraq.