The smoking ban (or non-smoking law ) is public policy, including criminal laws and safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in the workplace and public spaces others. Legislation can also define smoking because it generally is carrying or owning a lit tobacco product.
Video Smoking ban
Rationale
The smoking ban is in place to protect people from the effects of passive smoking, which includes an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and other diseases. The law enforcing indoor smoking ban has been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with some legislators citing scientific evidence suggesting tobacco smoking is harmful to smokers themselves and to those who inhale secondhand smoke.
In addition, such legislation can reduce health care costs, increase work productivity, and lower overall labor costs in the community so that it is protected, making the workforce more attractive to employers. In the state of Indiana, the US, the economic development agency was included in a 2006 plan to accelerate the growth of the urge economy for cities and towns to adopt a local smoking ban as a means to promote employment growth in the community.
Additional reasons for smoking restrictions include reducing the risk of fire in areas with explosion hazards; hygiene in places where food, pharmaceutical, semiconductor, or precision instruments and machinery are produced; reduce legal liability; potentially reducing energy use through decreased ventilatory requirements; reduce the amount of waste; a healthier environment; and provide incentives to smokers to quit smoking.
The World Health Organization considers smoking bans have the effect of reducing tobacco demand by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly difficult and to help shift the social norms of smoking acceptance in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking bans are viewed by public health experts as an important element in reducing smoking levels and promoting positive health outcomes. When applied effectively, they are seen as an important element of policy to support behavioral changes that support a healthy lifestyle.
Banning smoking in public places has helped cut premature birth by 10 percent, according to new research from the United States and Europe.
Maps Smoking ban
Base of evidence
Research has produced evidence that passive smoking causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma. In particular, the meta-analysis showed that lifelong non-smokers with couples who smoked at home had a 20-30% lung cancer risk greater than non-smokers living with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have a 16-19% increased lung cancer risk.
A study released in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogen because of tobacco smoke as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, especially benzopyrena and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium-210. Several established carcinogens have been demonstrated by studies of tobacco companies themselves to be present at higher concentrations in passive smokers than in mainstream cigarette smoke.
Scientific organizations that confirm the effects of passive smoking include the US National Cancer Institute, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the US National Institute of Health, the Surgeon General of the United States and the World Health Organization.
Air quality in bars and restaurants
The smoking restrictions in bars and restaurants can substantially improve air quality in such places. For example, one study listed on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website states that New York state legislation to eliminate smoking in closed workplaces and public places substantially reduces the level of RSP (inhalable particles) in places western New York hospitality. The RSP level is reduced in every place that permits smoking before the law is enforced, including places where only secondhand smoke from adjoining rooms is observed at the beginning. The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies that also showed substantial increases in indoor air quality after the smoking ban was instituted.
A 2004 study showed that New Jersey bars and restaurants had more than nine times the level of indoor air pollution in neighboring New York City, which has imposed a smoking ban.
Research has also shown that improving air quality means decreased exposure to toxins among workers. For example, among Norwegian company employees enforcing a smoking ban, tests showed a decrease in nicotine levels in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (compared with measurements before cigarette smoke).
Public Health Law Research
In 2009, the Public Health Law Research Program, a national program office of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, published a brief proof summarizing research assessing the effects of legislation or specific policies on public health. They stated that "There is strong evidence to support smoking bans and restrictions as effective public health interventions aimed at reducing exposure to secondhand smoke."
History
One of the earliest smoking restrictions in the world is the 1575 Roman Catholic Church's rules that prohibit the use of tobacco in every church in Mexico. In 1604, King James I of England published an anti-smoking treatise, A Counterblaste to Tobacco, which had the effect of raising taxes on tobacco. Sultan Ottoman Murad IV banned smoking in his empire in 1633 and had an executed smoker. Pope Urban VII also banned smoking in the Church in 1590 followed by Urban VIII in 1624. Pope Urban VII threatened to excommunicate anyone who "takes tobacco in a small way or inside a church, whether it is by chewing it, smoking with a pipe or sniffing it in form of powder through the nose ". Europe's earliest European smoking ban came into force shortly after. Such restrictions were imposed in Bavaria, Kursachsen, and certain parts of Austria at the end of the 17th century. Smoking was banned in Berlin in 1723, at KÃÆ'¶nigsberg in 1742, and at Stettin in 1744. This prohibition was lifted in the revolution of 1848.
The first building in the world to ban smoking was the Old Government House in Wellington, New Zealand in 1876. This is a concern over the threat of fire, because this is the second largest wooden building in the world.
In Canada, three provinces forbade smoking: New Brunswick (1890), Ontario (1892), and Nova Scotia (1892). A similar federal prohibition was adopted in 1908, in compromising the total ban on all ages across the country.
In 1890, 26 American states banned sales to minors. Further restrictions take effect during the next decade. Sales restrictions, including prohibitions, are upheld by the Supreme Court in 1900.
The first modern attempt to limit smoking was imposed by the German government at every university, post office, military hospital, and the Nazi Party office, under the auspices of the Tobacco Tobacco Research Institute Karl Astel, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler. The large anti-tobacco campaign was broadcast widely by the Nazis until the fall of the regime in 1945.
In the latter part of the 20th century, when research into the risks of secondhand tobacco smoke became public, the tobacco industry launched a "polite awareness" campaign. Afraid to reduce sales, the industry creates media and legislative programs that focus on "accommodation". Tolerance and courtesy are encouraged as a way to ease the rising tension between smokers and those around them, while avoiding smoking bans. In the US, countries are encouraged to pass legislation that provides a separate smoking section.
In 1975, the US state of Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to limit smoking in most public spaces. Initially, the restaurant is required to have a No Smoking section, and the bar is exempt from the Act. On October 1, 2007, Minnesota imposed a smoking ban on all restaurants and bars across the state, called the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.
The resort town of Aspen, Colorado, became the first US city to ban smoking at restaurants, in 1985, although it allowed smoking in separate ventilated areas.
On April 3, 1987, the city of Beverly Hills, California, began a regulation to limit smoking in most restaurants, in retail stores and at public meetings. This excludes restaurants in hotels - City Council members reasoned that the hotel restaurant serves a large number of overseas visitors, where smoking is more acceptable than in the United States.
In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking in bars and restaurants. However, the prohibition does not include the workplace but covers all other public indoor spaces and its enforcement is rather limited.
In America, California's smoking ban in 1998 prompted other countries like New York to enforce similar rules. The California ban includes a controversial restriction on smoking in bars, extending the nationwide ban enacted in 1994. In April 2009 there were 37 countries with some form of smoking ban. Several areas in California began banning smoking throughout the city, including every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California impose a smoking ban on parks and beaches.
Since December 1993, in Peru, it is illegal to smoke in public and public transport spaces (according to Law 25357 issued on 27 November 1991 and its regulations issued on 25 November 1993 by decree D.S.983-93-PCM). There are also laws that restrict publicity, as well as illegal (UU 26957 May 21, 1998) to sell tobacco to minors or directly advertise tobacco in 500 m schools (Law 26849 9 Jul 1997).
On 3 December 2003, New Zealand passed legislation to progressively enforce smoking restrictions at schools, school grounds and workplaces in December 2004. On 29 March 2004, the Republic of Ireland imposed a nationwide smoking ban on all workplaces. In Norway, similar regulations came into force on 1 June of the same year.
The Scottish ban on smoking in public places was introduced on March 26, 2006 by the Minister of Health and Community Care, Andy Kerr. Smoking was banned in all public places across England in 2007, when Britain became the final territory to enact legislation (the age limit for buying tobacco was also increased from 16 to 18 on October 1, 2007).
On July 12, 1999, an Awakening Division of Kerala High Court in India banned smoking in public by stating "public smoking as illegal for the first time in worldwide history, unconstitutional and infringing. Article 21 of the Constitution. " Justice K. Narayana Kurup, states that "smoking tobacco" in public places (in the form of cigarettes, cigars, beedies or other) "falls in criminal punishment provisions relating to public disturbances as embodied in the Indian Criminal Code and also the definition of air pollution as stated in the law relating to the protection and preservation of the environment, in particular, Air (Pollution Prevention and Control), Act 1981. "
In 2003, India introduced laws that prohibit smoking in public places such as restaurants, public transport or schools. The same law also makes it illegal to advertise cigarettes or other tobacco products.
In 2010, Nepal will enact a new anti-smoking bill that will ban smoking in public places and ban all tobacco advertising to prevent young people from smoking.
On May 31, 2011 Venezuela introduced restrictions on smoking in closed public and commercial spaces.
Smoking was first restricted to schools, hospitals, trains, buses and railway stations in Turkey in 1996. In 2008, a more comprehensive smoking ban was implemented, covering all public indoor venues.
Smoking has been restricted to the French coast - Plage LumiÃÆ'¨re in La Ciotat, France, becoming the first beach in Europe that restricts smoking, starting in August 2011, in an effort to encourage more tourists to visit the coast.
In 2012, smoking in Costa Rica is subject to some of the most stringent regulations in the world, banned from many recreational and outdoor educational areas as well as public buildings and vehicles.
Total tobacco ban
In 2004, Bhutan became the first country to completely ban the cultivation, harvesting, production, and sale of tobacco products. Penalties for violating the ban increased under the 'Bhutan Tobacco Control Act 2010'. However, small allowances for private ownership are allowed as long as the owner can prove that they have paid import duties. In January 2016, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov reportedly banned all tobacco sales in the country. Pitcairn Islands previously banned cigarette sales; However, it now allows sales from government-run stores. Pacific Island Niue hopes to become the next country to ban the sale of tobacco. A proposal in Iceland would ban the sale of tobacco from stores, making it only a recipe and therefore can be disposed of only at pharmacies on doctor's orders. New Zealand hopes to become tobacco-free by 2025 and Finland by 2040. In 2012, the anti-smoking group proposes a 'smoking license' - if a smoker manages to quit and redeem his license, they will get back the money they paid for it. Medical students in Singapore and the Australian state of Tasmania have proposed a 'tobacco-free millennium generation initiative' by banning the sale of all tobacco products to anyone born in and after 2000.
In March 2012, Brazil became the first country in the world to ban all scented tobacco, including menthol. It also forbids the majority of about 600 additives used, allowing only eight. This regulation applies to imported domestic and international cigarettes. Tobacco producers have 18 months to remove non-compliant cigarettes, 24 months to remove other forms of non-standard tobacco.
Advertising Cigarettes
In some parts of the world, tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sports events are prohibited. The banning of tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the European Union in 2005 prompted Formula One management to look for places that allowed tobacco sponsors to be exhibited, and caused some races on the calendar to be canceled for preferring tobacco-friendly markets. In 2007, only one Formula One team, Scuderia Ferrari, received a sponsor from a tobacco company; Branding Marlboro appeared in his cars in three races (Bahrain, Monaco, and China), all in countries that have no restrictions on tobacco advertising. Billboard ads for tobacco are still used in Germany, while all other EU members forbid it.
MotoGP teams Ducati Marlboro received sponsorship from Marlboro, a branding that appeared in races in Qatar and China. On July 1, 2009, Ireland banned ads and featured tobacco products in all retail outlets.
Public support
The 2007 Gallup poll found that 54% of Americans favor restaurants that are completely non-smoking, 34% are fond of completely non-smoking hotel rooms, and 29% are fond of non-smoking bars.
Another Gallup poll, more than 26,500 Europeans, conducted in December 2008, found that "the majority of EU residents support smoking bans in public places, such as offices, restaurants and bars." Further polls found that "support for smoking restrictions in the workplace is slightly higher than support for restrictions such as in restaurants (84% vs 79%). Two-thirds support non-smoking bars, pubs and clubs." This support is highest in countries that have implemented a clear smoking ban: "Residents in Italy are the most vulnerable to accept smoking bans in bars, pubs and clubs (93% - 87%" really support "). Sweden and Ireland joining Italy at the far end of the scale with about 80% of respondents supporting bars, pubs and clubs non-smoking (70% in both countries really support). "
The smoking bans effect
Health effects
Banning tobacco smoking in public places has reduced the cause of heart disease among adults. Such regulations include banning smoking in restaurants, buses, hotels, and workplaces. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) organized by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that there was a cardiovascular effect from exposure to secondhand smoke. Epidemiological reports say that the risk of coronary heart disease increases to about 25-30% when a person is exposed to secondhand smoke. The data show that even at low smoke levels, there are risks and risks rising with more exposure.
A 2012 meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was associated with lower rates of hospitalization for cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and respiratory diseases, and that "a more comprehensive law is associated with greater risk changes." The senior author of this meta-analysis, Stanton Glantz, told USA Today that, in connection with the exclusion of certain facilities from smoking bans, "The politicians are putting the exception in condemning people for inclusion in the emergency room." A 2013 review found that smoking bans were associated with a "significant reduction in acute MI [myocardial infarction] risk", but noted that "studies with smaller populations in the United States typically report greater reductions, while larger studies report reductions which is relatively simple. "
A systematic review and meta-analysis 2014 found that smoke-free legislation was associated with about 10% reduction in preterm delivery and hospital attendance for asthma, but not with low birth weight. The 2016 Cochrane Review found that since previous versions of the review were published in 2010, evidence that smoking bans improve health outcomes is stronger, especially with respect to the acceptance of acute coronary syndromes.
However, other studies have come to the conclusion that smoking bans have little or no short-term effects on myocardial infarction rates and other illnesses. A 2010 study from the US used an enormous national representative database to compile non-smoking areas with control areas and found no association between smoking bans and short-term decreases in heart attack rates. The authors also analyzed smaller studies using subsample and revealed that large short-term increases in the incidence of myocardial infarction after smoking bans were common with large reductions.
Effects on tobacco consumption
Smoking bans are generally recognized to reduce smoking levels; Non-smoking workplaces reduce smoking levels among workers, and restrictions on smoking in public places reduce the rate of public smoking through a combination of stigmatization and a reduction in social cues for smoking. However, reports in the popular press after the smoking ban have been imposed often present conflicting accounts regarding the perception of effectiveness.
One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after their smoking ban was implemented. In contrast, another report stated that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell 16% in the six months following the implementation of the ban. In the UK, cigarette sales fell 11% during July 2007, the first month of the national smoking ban, compared to July 2006.
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris summarizes the tobacco industry's concern about the effects of smoking bans: "The total smoking ban at work affects the tobacco industry's volume, smokers facing this limitation consume 11% - 15% less than average and stop at the level which is 84% ​​higher than the average. "
In the United States, the CDC has reported a decrease in smoking levels in recent years despite a wider range of more comprehensive smoking bans and large tax increases. It has also been argued that the "barrier" of hardcore smokers has been achieved: those who are unmotivated and increasingly challenging in the face of further legislation. The smoking ban in New York City is credited with reducing adult smoking rates by nearly twice the rate across the country, "and life expectancy has risen three years in a decade".
In Sweden, snus use, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since the country's smoking ban.
Smoking restrictions can make it easier for smokers to quit smoking. A survey showed 22% of UK smokers may have considered stopping in response to the country's smoking ban.
Restrictions on smoking in restaurants can help stop young people from becoming smokers who are used to smoking. A study of Massachusetts youth found that those in urban smoking bases were 35 percent less likely to become regular smokers.
Effects on business
Much research has been published in the health industry literature on the economic impact of smoking bans. The majority of government and academic studies have found that there are no negative economic impacts associated with smoking restrictions and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 studies on the economic influence of smoking bans on the hospitality industry found that the "best designed" study concluded that smoking bans do not harm businesses. Similarly, the 2014 meta-analysis found no significant gains or losses in earnings in restaurants and bars affected by smoking bans.
Bar-funded studies and restaurant associations sometimes claim that smoking bans have a negative effect on restaurant and bar profits. Such associations also criticized research that found that the law had no impact. Many bar and restaurant associations have links with the tobacco industry and are sponsored by them.
Australia
A government survey in Sydney found that the proportion of people attending pubs and clubs increased after smoking was banned in it. However, ClubsNSW's report in August 2008 blamed a smoking ban for New South Wales clubs who suffered the worst downturn in their earnings, totaling $ 385 million. Earnings for the club fell 11% in New South Wales. Sydney CBD club revenue fell 21.7% and West Sydney club lost 15.5%.
German
Some smoking bans were introduced at German hotels, restaurants and bars in 2008 and early 2009. The restaurant industry has claimed that some businesses in the state that banned smoking by the end of 2007 (Lower Saxony, Baden-WÃÆ'¼rttemberg, and Hesse). The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (DEHOGA) claims that smoking bans prevent people from going out for a drink or a meal, stating that 15% of companies adopting a ban in 2007 saw turnover drop by about 50%. However, a study by the University of Hamburg (Ahlfeldt and Maennig 2010) found a negative impact on income, if any, only in the short term. In the medium to long term, income recovery occurs. These results suggest that consumption in bars and restaurants is not affected by long-term smoking bans, or, that the negative impacts of income by smokers are compensated by increased income through non-smokers. Smoking is not permitted in public transport or in or around railway stations except for locations designated specifically for smoking. Smoking on trains was completely banned by Deutsche Bahn AG in 2007. Smoking has been restricted to airports and all Lufthansa aircraft since the late 1990s.
The awarded 2006 FIFA World Cup is the last before the ban on smoking in cafes, bars and restaurants introduced in most countries around the world.
In 2008, Bavaria became the first federal state in Germany to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. After this restriction was criticized as "too harsh" by some CSU members of the governing party, it was casual one year later. Supporters of the smoking ban then brought a public referendum on the issue, which led to more restrictive restrictions than the initial ban. After that, a more comprehensive ban was introduced in 2010.
Also in 2010, Saarland became the second federal state with a full ban on bars and restaurants.
In 2013, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's most populous state, became the third country with a strict ban on bars and restaurants.
ireland
The Republic of Ireland was the first country to introduce a fully smoke-free workplace (March 2004). Non-smoking legislation in Ireland was introduced with the aim of protecting workers from passive smoking and to prevent smoking in countries with a high percentage of smokers. In Ireland, the main opposition to the ban came from tax collectors. Many pubs introduce "outer" settings (usually areas heated with shelters). It was speculated by opponents that the workplace law is smoke-free will increase the number of drinking and smoking at home, but recent research shows that this is not the case.
The website of the Irish Tobacco Control Office shows that "an evaluation of official hotel sector data demonstrates no adverse economic effects from the introduction of this move (national introduction in March 2004 to non-smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.) has claimed that the law is free cigarettes are factors that contribute significantly to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with nearly 440 licenses being slightly updated in 2006 compared to 2005. "
Isle of Man
A smoke-free ban takes effect on the Isle of Man on March 30, 2008.
India
Chandigarh became the first non-smoking smoke-free city in India in July 2007. Hemant Goswami's social activist is doing pioneering work to make Chandigarh smoke-free. Inspired by the success of Chandigarh, Minister of Health Union then Dr. Ambumani Ramadoss enacted a new non-smoking regulation in 2008. India banned smoking in public places on October 2, 2008. Nearly a decade earlier, on July 12, 1999, a Kerala High Court Bench Division in India banned smoking in public by stating smoking in public places as illegal (the first time in the world), unconstitutional, and violate Article 21 of the constitution. The bench led by Dr. Justice K. Narayana Kurup, argues that tobacco smoking in public places (in the form of cigarettes, cigars, beedies or other) is in criminal punishment provisions relating to public disturbances as contained in the Penal Code Indians and in the definition of air pollution as stated in laws relating to the protection and preservation of the environment, in particular, the Prevention and Control of the Pollution Act 1981. The Supreme Court at Murli S Deora vs. Union of India and Ors., Recognizing the harmful effects of smoking in public and also the effects on passive smokers, and in the absence of legal provisions at that time, no smoking in public places such as, 1.auditoriums, 2. hospital buildings, 3. institution of health, 4. institution education, 5. library, 6. courthouse, 7. public office, 8. public transport, including rail.
Tobacco is universally regarded as one of the major public health hazards and is responsible directly or indirectly for the estimated eight lakh deaths annually in this country. It has also been found that the treatment of tobacco-related diseases and loss of productivity leads to costs in the country of almost Rs. 13,500 crores annually, which more than offset all the benefits gained in the form of income and employment generated by the tobacco industry.
Philippines
The smoking ban in the Philippines is under the provisions of two laws: the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the Tobacco Regulations Act of 2003.
The Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 prohibits smoking in public buildings or closed public places including public transport and other means of transportation or in enclosed areas outside one's private residence, private workplace or designated smoking area.
Tobacco regulations also prohibit smoking in public places, such as schools, public transport terminals, malls and places with fire hazards, such as gas stations.
Cancer survivors supported a planned smoking ban for local government units to strictly enforce the regulations laid down by the 2003 Tobacco Regulatory Act. On May 16, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte signed an executive order for the demolition of public smoking areas, both indoors. and outdoors, impose a national smoking ban.
Polish
Smoking in public places is prohibited in Poland on 15 November 2010 by a change in parliamentary action "About Defending Health Against the Use of Tobacco and Tobacco Products" ( Ustawa ochronie zdrowia estimate nast? Pstwami u? Ywania tytoniu i wyrobÃÆ'³w tytoniowych ). The smoke ban covers all public places, regardless of ownership, ie restaurants, pubs, workplaces, hospitals, universities, public transport stops and stations and sports facilities (primary and secondary educational institutions declared non-smoking in 1996). The fine to violate the ban is up to 500 Poles z oty. Business owners who fail to place a no smoking sign can be fined up to 2000 z? Oty, while tobacco manufacturers who advertise their products as "less dangerous" or "healthier" can be fined up to 200000 z? oty.
However, after two years of prevailing the ban does not affect the number of active smokers in Poland. According to a 2012 poll by CBOS, both before the ban and 2 years later the percentage of Poles smoked exactly the same: 31.
Russian
Russia is one of the last countries in the world that does not have anti-smoking laws in place. However, in October 2012, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev embarked on an anti-tobacco strategy that has led to proposals from the Russian Ministry of Health to stop advertising, raising taxes on cigarette sales and banning smoking in public spaces. The Prime Minister deplored the death rate of smoking in a country with 400,000 people die each year for smoking causes and this is also exacerbated by the fact that a pack of cigarettes in Russia is usually worth around the Ã, Â £ 1 mark.
A strict law aims to protect public health from cigarette smoke and the consequences of smoking that introduces a smoking ban in all public areas closed under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control commenced on June 1, 2013. Initially offenders of the smoking ban were not fined - the mechanism is still under consideration. The law prohibits smoking in schools and universities, cultural and sporting organizations, beaches, stadiums, on playgrounds and in hospitals, in sanitariums and in health resorts, within offices of public organizations and at gas stations. Smoking is prohibited on airplanes, on subways and all types of public transport. Starting on November 15, 2013, smoking in the workplace, near and within educational, cultural, sports and health care organizations, in the home aisles, at railway stations and airports should be fined 500 to 1,500 rubles ($ 15-45.5). Organizational management where prohibitions are violated will face tougher fines. Beginning June 1, 2014, this list will come with restaurants and bars, dormitories, hotels, long-distance trains, and a suburban railway station hostel platform.
United Kingdom
The no-smoking regulation was enacted in Scotland on 26 March 2006, in Wales on April 2, 2007, in Northern Ireland on April 30, 2007 and in the UK on 1 July 2007. The regulation cited as an example of good regulation that has had a beneficial impact on the economy The UK by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and the review of the impact of cigarette-free legislation conducted for the Department of Health concluded that there was no obvious adverse impact on the hospitality industry despite early criticism from some voices in the pub trade.
Six months after its implementation in Wales, the Licensed Licensing Association (LVA), which represents pub operators throughout Wales, claims that pubs have lost up to 20% of their trades. LVA says some businesses are on the verge of closing, others are already closed, and there is little trading optimism that will eventually return to previous levels.
The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), which represents several pubs and breweries in the UK, claims that beer sales are at their lowest level since the 1930s, due to a 7% drop in sales during 2007 with a smoke-free regulation.
According to a survey conducted by the pub and bar publishing magazine The Publican, the anticipated increase in food sales after the introduction of a smoke-free workplace was not imminent. The trade magazine survey of 303 pubs in the UK found the average customer spending £ 14.86 for food and drinks at dinner in 2007, almost identical to 2006.
A survey conducted by BII (formerly the British Institute of Innkeeping) and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Association (FLVA) concluded that sales had fallen by 7.3% in the 5 months since the introduction of a non-smoking workplace on July 1, 2007. Of 2,708 responses Survey, 58% of license holders say they have seen less regular visiting smokers, while 73% have seen their smoking customers spend less time in pubs.
United States
In the US, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argue that businesses will suffer from no smoking laws. However, a 2006 review by the US Surgeon General found that smoking restrictions are unlikely to harm businesses in practice, and many restaurants and bars may see business improvements.
In 2003, New York City changed its smoke-free law to include almost all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it, along with California's smoke-free law, one of the most difficult in the United States. The city's Health Department found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels have dropped sixfold in bars and restaurants after restrictions imposed, and that New York has reported fewer passive smokers in the workplace. The study also found prosperous city restaurants and bars despite smoke-free laws, with employment increases, liquor licenses, and business tax payments. The President of the New York Night Life Association said the research was not fully representative, since by not differentiating between restaurants and nightclubs, the reforms might have caused businesses such as nightclubs and bars to suffer instead. A 2006 study by the New York State Department of Health found that "the CIAA does not have a significant negative financial impact on restaurants and bars in both the short and long term".
In May 2011, New York City expanded a previously applied smoking ban by banning smoking in parks, beaches and sidewalks, public golf courses, and other areas controlled by the New York City Department of Parks. On October 30, 2013, the city council agreed to raise the age to buy all kinds of tobacco and even electronic cigarettes from the age of 18 years to 21 years. In the United States, a small number of cities, including New York and Boston suburbs such as Needham, Massachusetts, have 21 years of age as the minimum age to buy cigarettes; in most other areas the legal age is 18 or 19 years.
Using data on tobacco sales and taxes from 216 cities and districts for 11 years, the researchers projected that seven states would have no economic impact, and West Virginia would see a 1 percent increase in restaurant work if smoking bans across the state were adopted. Other benefits of smoking bans in bars and restaurants include lung function improvements and decreased smoking levels among staff. Some data came from the Missouri Department of Revenue after a smoking ban was passed in Lake Saint Louis, Kirkwood, Clayton, and Ballwin.
Effects on musical instruments
Instruments driven by bellows - such as accordions, concertina, melodeon and (Ireland) Uilleann bagpipes - reportedly require less frequent cleaning and maintenance as a result of Ireland's non-smoking bill. "Third-hand smoke", solid particles from passive smokers adsorbed to the surface and then re-emitted as gas or transferred through touch, is a particular problem for musicians. After playing in the smoky bar, the instrument can release nicotine, 3-ethenylpyridine (3-EP), phenol, cresols, naphthalene, formaldehyde, and nitrosamine specifically tobacco (including some not found in newly emitted tobacco smoke), which can go into musicians' bodies through the skin, or be re-emitted as gas after they leave the smoky environment. Concern about third hand smoke on instruments is one reason many musicians, represented by the New Orleans Musicians' Clinic, support the smoking ban there.
Effects of a prison smoking ban
Prisons are increasingly limiting tobacco smoking. In the United States, 24 states prohibit indoor smoking while California, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Kentucky prohibit smoking throughout prisons. In July 2004, the Federal Bureau adopted a smoke-free policy for its facilities. The 1993 Supreme Court ruling in the US acknowledged that the exposure of detainees to passive smokers could be regarded as a cruel and unusual punishment (which would violate the Eighth Amendment). A 1997 decree in Massachusetts stipulated that a prison smoking ban was not a cruel and unusual punishment. Many officials see a ban on smoking in prisons as a means of reducing health care costs.
With the exception of Quebec, all Canadian provinces banned smoking indoors and outdoors in all of their prison facilities. Prison officials and guards are sometimes worried because of previous incidents in other prisons about the riots, pushing the black cigarette market inside the prison, and other problems resulting from the ban on total prison smoking. The prisons have experienced a riot when placing cigarette restrictions that result in inmates burning, destroying prison properties, people being attacked, wounded, and stabbed. A prison in Canada has several guards reporting the difficulty breathing from the smoke of inmates smoking an artificial cigarette made from an illuminated nicotine patch by creating sparks from inserting metal objects into electrical outlets. For example, in 2008, the Orsainville Detention Center near Quebec City, recalled its smoke-free provision following the riots. But the expected increase in feared tension and violence in relation to smoking restrictions is generally not experienced in practice.
The ban on prison smoking also applies in New Zealand, the Isle of Man and the Australian states of Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and New South Wales. The New Zealand ban was then successfully challenged in court on two occasions, resulting in legal changes to defend it.
Compliance
The introduction of smoking restrictions sometimes results in widespread protests and predictions of non-compliance, along with the emergence of smoke, including in New York City, Germany, Illinois, Great Britain, Utah, and Washington, D.C.
High levels of compliance with smoke-free laws have been reported in most jurisdictions including New York, Ireland, Italy and Scotland. Poor compliance is reported in Calcutta.
Criticism of non-smoking legislation
Non-smoking regulations and procedures have been criticized for a number of reasons.
Government disorder with personal lifestyle
Critics of non-smoking provisions, including musician Joe Jackson, and political essayist Christopher Hitchens, have claimed that regulatory efforts are misdirected. Typically, such an argument is based on the interpretation of the destructive principle of John Stuart Mill who considers smoke-free legislation as a barrier to tobacco consumption per se, not bar when harming others.
Such an argument, which usually refers to the idea of ​​personal freedom, has been criticized by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen who defended the smoke-free regulation for several reasons. Among other things, Sen argues that although a person may be free to get a smoking habit, they are thus limiting their own freedom in the future as smoking habits are hard to stop. Sen also shows the huge cost that smoking will certainly impose on any society that gives smokers unlimited access to public services (which, Sen notes, any society that is not "very unforgiving" will do). Arguments that call for the idea of ​​personal freedom to smoke-free laws are thus incomplete and inadequate, according to the Senator
In New Zealand, two psychiatrists and a nurse took the local district health council to court, arguing that smoking bans in the intensive care unit violated "human dignity" because they were there for mental health reasons, not smoking-related illnesses. They argue it is "cruel" to refuse cigarette patients.
Property rights
Some criticisms of smoke-free laws emphasize the ownership rights of business owners, which draws distinctions between public places (such as government buildings) and private companies (such as bars and restaurants). Citing economic efficiency, some economists suggest that basic institutions of private property and contractual freedom are able to resolve conflicts between smoker preferences and those seeking a smoke-free environment, without government interference.
Effects on an existing smoke free business
Many critics, including a large number of those who oppose smoking restrictions on the basis of property rights, noted that where there is no smoking ban set up in private premises, some companies can manage themselves by serving the customer niche market. who prefer a non-smoking place. Ban smoking in all areas, according to these critics, will eliminate the competitive advantage of these companies.
Smoke-free regulation legality
Businesses affected by smoke-free regulations have filed lawsuits claiming that this is unconstitutional or illegal. In the United States, some cite unequal protection under the law while others cite the loss of business without compensation, as well as other types of challenges. Some places where the hospitality business filed lawsuits against the State or local government including, Nevada, Montana, Iowa, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, South Carolina, and Hawaii.
Non-smoking law can move cigarettes elsewhere
Restrictions on smoking in offices and other public places often cause smokers to go outside for smoking, often gathered outside the door. This can cause people who do not smoke through these doors exposed to smoke more than less. Many jurisdictions that have restricted smoking in closed public places have extended the provision to cover areas within a fixed distance from the entrance to the building.
Former UK Health Minister John Reid claims that smoking restrictions in public places can cause more smoking at home. However, both the House of Commons Health Committee and the Royal College of Physicians disagree, with previous findings no evidence to support Reid's claims after studying Ireland, and recent findings that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.
In January 2010, the mayor of Boston, Massachusetts, Thomas Menino, proposed restrictions on smoking in public housing apartments under the jurisdiction of the Boston Housing Authority.
Connection to DUI fatalities
In May 2008, a study published by Adams and Cotti in the Journal of Public Economics examined mortality statistics and drunk driving accidents in areas where smoke-free legislation had been implemented in bars and found that fatal drunks Driving accidents increased by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a regular area of ​​680,000. They speculate this could be caused by smokers who drive further into jurisdiction without smoke-free laws or where enforcement is weak.
The effect of funding on research literature
As in other areas of research, the funding effect on the research literature has been discussed in relation to the smoke-free law. Most commonly, studies that have found little or no positive and/or negative effects of smoke-free and tobacco-funded legislation have been investigated for being biased against their donors.
Professor of Economics at the State Polytechnic of California, University of San Luis Obispo, Michael L. Marlow, defended the "tobacco-sponsored study" on the grounds that all research is worth "scrutinized and skeptical", regardless of their funding. He hopes for the basic assumption that every writer is "fair-minded and trustworthy, and worth listening" and pay less attention to research funding when evaluating research results. Marlow pointed out that studies funded by tobacco companies are viewed and dismissed as "deceit", that is because they are driven by ill will.
Alternative for non-smoking
Incentives for volunteer-free companies
During the debate on Washington, DC, non-smoking law, city councilor Carol Schwartz proposed a law that would enact a large tax credit for businesses that choose to voluntarily limit smoking or quadruple annual business license fees for bars, restaurants and clubs who wants to allow smoking. In addition, locations that allow smoking will be required to install a specified high-performance ventilation system.
Ventilation
Critics of the smoke-free law state that ventilation is a means to reduce the harmful effects of passive smoking. A tobacco-funded study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, published in the Journal of Service Services shows that "ventilation is effective in controlling the level of contamination", although "the ventilation can only dilute or partially replace contaminants and exposure limits in work is based on the principle of 'as low as possible'. "
Some hospitality organizations have claimed that the ventilation system can take place in line with the non-smoking restaurant regulations. A study published by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found a lower air quality establishment in the non-smoking section due to improperly installed ventilation systems. They also determined that even well-functioning systems "do not replace smoking bans in controlling environmental smoke exposure".
The tobacco industry is focusing on proposing ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free legislation, although this approach has not been widely adopted in the US because "ultimately, simpler, cheaper, and healthier to end smoking." The prohibition of Italian smoke-free laws allows special smoking rooms with automatic doors and smoke extractors. Nevertheless, some Italian companies created a smoking room because of the additional cost.
An important report from the US Surgeon General found that even the use of an elaborate ventilation system and smoking room failed to provide protection from the health hazards of passive smokers, due to an "unsafe level of passive smokers".
Preemption
A number of states in the United States have a "preemption clause" in state law that prevents local communities from issuing tobacco-free regulations more stringent than state laws on books. The rationale is to prevent local communities from issuing smoke-free regulations that the state legislature oversaw. Other countries have an "anti-preemption clause" that allows local communities to pass a smoking ban legislation that is unacceptable under their laws.
exception exception
In Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, three restaurants received short-term exceptions from local smoke-free regulations in restaurants when they succeeded in showing financial hardship.
See also
General
- List of smoking bans (worldwide)
- List of smoking bans in the United States
- Smoking ban on private vehicles
- List of non-smoking colleges and universities
- Smoke
- Tobacco control
- Tobacco fatwa
- A Counterblaste to Tobacco
- Blue law
- Indoor air quality
Organization
- Action Smoking and Health
- Airspace Action on Smoking and Health
- American Anti-Cigarette League
- FOREST (UK pro-tobacco group)
People
- Douglas Eads Foster, Los Angeles, California, member of the City Council, 1927-29, proposed a smoking ban near school
- Evan Lewis, member of the Los Angeles City Council, 1925-41, opposes smoking on the theater balcony Adolf Hitler, 1889-1945, is often regarded as the first national leader to advocate non-smoking.
- Patricia Hewitt introduces a ban in the UK.
- Nicola Roxon introduces plain packaging in Australia
References
External links
- Canadian Council for Tobacco Control
- Clear Scottish Water Scotland site established to provide information about Scottish non-smoking law
- Hong Kong Tobacco Control Office
- US Smoking Prohibition History
- Irish Government Tobacco Control Office
- The State Tobacco Act of the American Cancer Society
- Legacy tobacco Document Library from the University of California, San Francisco
- Document Archive Philip Morris USA
- Prevalence of smoking and information about smoking bans on interactive world maps
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments