Tomorrow on the 1st July, all through the UK a ban on smoking in public places swings into action. The famous smoke filled pubs will now smell of stale beer instead- resturants as well will be uncluttered by the smoking of their customers and around the doors of shops, businesses and clubs smokers will gather outside in the cold to have a final cigarrette before heading inside. The ban has been incredibly controversial- some have argued it is a blow against civil liberties, others that it is a step in the right direction saving perhaps thousands of people from passive smoking. The change in the law in England reflects earlier changes in other places- New York, Ireland and many parts of Europe have also banned smoking. Its worth asking therefore whether such bans are justified- whether governments are right to tell populations to put that light out!



We need to start thinking about this through the medium of a theoretical argument about smoking and its relationship to the public good. Ultimately it is right that any government has to justify why a particular practise- in this case smoking in a public place should be banned. There is convincing evidence available that smoking harms the human body- it causes lung cancer and other respiratory diseases and can contribute to all sorts of problems from erectile disfunction to cancers of the mouth. Further studies performed by the World Health Organisation, the United States government, the United Kingdom's government and the Australian Government all demonstrate that inhaling other people's smoke is also harmful to individuals in the vicinity. The United Kingdom's Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson confirmed this perception in 2003 when he stated that passive smoking was definitely a factor in bronchital disease, asthma and other related conditions amongst the inhalers of it. Indeed anecdotal evidence from your correspondent, an asthmatic who has had to sit in smoky pubs talking to friends would seem to confirm the medical advice- inhaling smoke having resulted in sleepless nights filled with coughing.

The medical evidence though doesn't prove that its right to ban smoking in public places though- but it does suggest some reasons why we might ban it. The act of passive smoking won't neccessarily kill you especially if it is infrequent and many of its consequences like raised blood pressure are only temporary (in that case for half an hour) but it is unpleasant to non-smokers, particularly to non-smoking staff in resturants and pubs. The law as always is unclear on what its basis is often- we do though tend to ban or make difficult actions in public places which cause less harm than smoking but might offend- for example public sex or masturbation and other exhibitionist behaviour- even if entirely self regarding is banned- so this is a complicated area.

Consistent libertarians might argue- and do argue that public sex ought not to be illegal but the majority of the opponents of a ban on smoking are not consistent enough to be willing to abandon such a prohibition, on say masturbation in pubs- even though the effect of flying semen is much less dangerous than that of flying tobacco smoke. To ban smoking therefore because of the offence it causes to others and the distress it causes to others is perfectly consistent with our attitude to a whole range of activities that society insists for a variety of reasons be private and not public.

Any principle in law can be taken too far- but as I think has been shown there is a real reason for people to be offended by smoking- there are temporary health effects, there is also the discomfort of washing and rewashing clothes, of having the over 400 chemical consituents of tobacco smoke floating over your food or your drink- in many ways as well there is an employment related issue floating around here. Should you work in a bar to what extent can one of the conditions of your employment be your poisoning with tobacco smoke? Furthermore to what extent is the government responsible for that fact- that you have become ill through the intake of smoke that your employer may have effectively forced you to consume.

Allowing a law which bans smoking in public places or indeed sex in public places is partly about the harm that it does other members of the community but its partly also about the yuck factor that such activities inspire. Some might question whether such a law would end up legitimating say a ban on same sex partners kissing or holding hands in public if the public feels enough disquiet- I'm not sure that it would- smoking does active harm to others around, and so is in a different category, the yuck factor is reinforced by the harm that is done to others. This is a part of my argument though that I can see is weak- but I do think most of us would agree that there are activities which whilst self regarding should be banned from happening in public places because of their indeceny, sex might be one, masturbation another- it might be sensible to add smoking to that list especially because it causes actual harm to others.



Its worth noting, as Derek Wanless in a study done for the UK Treasury did, that most of the evidence from places that have banned smoking in public places demonstrates that smoking has fallen. I have definitely discussed that with friends of mine that do smoke and found that they would think about quitting because of a ban- people who smoke and use the excuse or are tempted by a social environment might end up smoking less than they do already. That must be a good thing.

Again the libertarian is entitled to ask me about whether we can make a law that effects someone else's actions that affect their health- I don't think we neccessarily can accept when there is clear evidence of harm. Smoking though does involve clear harm through passive smoking- in which case the health benefit is an additional reason to advocate a ban. Just as seatbelts in cars were put in by force partly to diminish the danger to the occupant of the front seat by those in the back in a crash but are further justified by the safety of everyone in the car, so smoking can be banned in public places because of passive smoking and further justified by the fact that the evidence suggests this will mean that people who now smoke may well give up in the future.

One last point may be added which I think ameliorates the libertarian situation which is the provision of smoking rooms in pubs and clubs- perhaps places where bar staff cannot be compelled to work in but at any rate where people can go to smoke. The idea of this has been raised before but might be worth exploring more.



None of these arguments are emphatic. But to reconsider essentially we have two arguments supported by a third. Smoking is a disgusting habit to those who don't smoke- it chokes the atmosphere around the smoker and makes everyone sitting around them feel worse. Its also terribly unhealthy and the evidence suggests were it to be banned people would stop. But ultimately over the top of those two considerations comes a third, that it poisons other people around the smoker. Consequently I endorse the government's changes to the law- smoking in public places should be banned because it is unhealthy, disgusting and harms others.

Put that light out now!