Ban smoking in public?

Yes, says DAVID REED of Yorkshire Action on Smoking and Health.

IT is past time for action on secondhand smoke. When you go into a smoky workplace, a restaurant or a pub, you will be exposed to a cocktail of poisonous chemicals, including benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic and ammonia. Anyone who has ever been in a pub while it is being cleaned, and watched heavy yellow tar being scraped off the walls, will know just what our lungs are being asked to tolerate in pursuit of a pint.

We can actually measure thickening of the blood, constriction of the arteries and a consequent increase in blood pressure 30 minutes after exposure to second hand smoke - a potentially lethal mixture for the millions of people with heart conditions.

There is no room for doubt that people are being admitted to Yorkshire hospitals every day with heart attacks caused, or worsened, by other people's smoke.

Second-hand smoke causes at least a thousand adult deaths each year and also causes cot death, asthma, lung infections and middle-ear disease in children.

Yet at least three million employees are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace.

Most restaurant chains and almost all pubs continue to permit smoking on the premises.

Attempts to encourage voluntary bans have largely failed.

No wonder the presidents of all Britain's royal colleges of medicine have called on the Government to change the law.

Smoking bans have already been introduced in New York and California, and are imminent in Norway, Ireland and the Netherlands.

Contrary to the fears of the hospitality trade, and the propaganda of the tobacco industry, there is good evidence that these bans have not damaged business in any way. Indeed, the number of jobs in the hospitality trade in New York is rising, not falling.

A pub that has just gone smoke-free in Sheffield says business is booming. And the decision to make Huddersfield bus station smoke free has been so successful that the policy will be extended across the whole county.

Opponents of a smoking ban suggest that "non-smoking areas" would be a good solution. But they aren't.

Smoke drifts. And employees who have to work in the remaining smoking areas will still be exposed to harm.

Nor are ventilation systems a good answer: even the most expensive systems don't take all the dangerous chemicals out of the atmosphere fast or thoroughly enough to prevent damage to health.

Opponents argue that a ban on smoking at work and in bars and restaurants would be an unacceptable attack on the freedom of adult citizens to choose whether or not to smoke. But no one has a right to engage in activities which cause direct harm to others. If people do choose to smoke, they should do so only when vulnerable non-smokers are not exposed to the results.

In fact, most smokers want to give up - they find it difficult because nicotine is an addictive drug. But restrictions on smoking at work are known to encourage people to quit.

Many thousands of smokers' lives would be saved by a legal ban.

No, says JIM HARDIE, licensee of the Blue Bell in York

ASMOKING ban would ruin pub culture and I would go bankrupt if you had no right to smoke in here. A lot of people, when they come for a pint, they want a cigarette as well. It's just one of those things. I believe that sales in New York bars went down by 30 per cent when they banned smoking in bars there.

If that happened here, I would have to sell up. And who would want to buy a pub that does not make any money?

It comes down to choice. I have no problems at all with a pub landlord deciding to ban smoking in his own pub, if that's what he chooses to do.

Then people could choose for themselves whether or not they wanted to go in there. And in larger pubs or restaurants, they can have separate rooms or no-smoking areas.

But you can't do that in here.

This is York's smallest pub, built in 1798. It's a listed building, so there is not much you can do.

We have a smoke extractor, and we have banned large cigars and certain pipes. So we are doing the best that we can. But I can't have a separate no smoking area: we are just not big enough.

As for banning smoking in the street - well, let's face it, you're out in the open, in the fresh air, and you have to have that choice.

I would rather they banned chewing gum, to be honest, when you look at the amount of the stuff that is tracked in here on to the carpets.

So I would definitely be against an outright ban. I can appreciate the arguments about people's health, and of course any doctor would have to say they are against smoking.

But there have to be some areas of life where you have a choice.

How many people are killed each year crossing the street, or because of speeding?

Are you going to ban cars?

Is there going to be a ban on drinking next? Or on mountain climbing?

And lots of motorcylists die on the roads.

What do you do, ban them?

People say smoking costs the National Health Service millions of pounds a year. But I should like to know how much revenue the Government gets from the tax on tobacco.

You could probably even argue that smokers are helping to fund the health service!

If there was a blanket ban on smoking, would the Government have to put an extra pound on a pint of beer, or on a gallon of petrol?

Or would they simply bring back window taxes?

It is a difficult call, and I would certainly never want to encourage anybody to do something which could affect their health.

But there was a recent poll which revealed that only 17 per cent of people were in favour of a total ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and bars.

Yes, you can go in some places and think 'bloody hell, it's thick in here'. But you always have the option to leave. And you can't have the Government legislating for everything.

Some things have to be a matter of choice.

Updated: 10:15 Wednesday, November 26, 2003