I am a non-smoker, but there was a time when I was a fag-ash Lil and would
puff away on 20 or more Rothman’s a day, even the odd Gaulois, until my constant coughing and hacking forced me to quit. I feel so much better for it too, but I have no objection if others choose to fritter away several hundreds of pounds a year on the weed.
However, their choice of smoking venues will be severely restricted after 1st July when a smoking ban comes into force. It covers virtually all enclosed public places including offices, factories, pubs and bars.
To enforce the new law, our cash-strapped government is giving councils £29.5 million to train staff, taking them off their normal duties, training them how to give on-the-spot £50 fines to individuals and take court action against premises. How easy will it be in reality to enforce?
A government-funded course is expected to train 1,200 council officers in the next few months with more expected to follow later. They will be taught how to film and photograph people to gather evidence, they don’t even have to identify themselves. I can see this resulting in quite a few confrontational situations, to put it mildly.
In Nottingham, there will be about 30 officers patrolling the city, comprised of new staff and existing environmental health officers. But the council is also exploring the possibility of getting street wardens, who currently aid the local police force, to help ensure the ban is effectively enforced.
In Liverpool, there will be a core team of about 20 to 25 staff keeping an eye on public places, although in the first few days after the start of the ban the council is planning to do a mass patrol of the city with 200 staff.
I prefer to live in a cleaner environment, I prefer smoke-free zones. But why should our council staff become law enforcement officers? I imagine police have told the government they do not want to weed out those who flout this new law, they do not want to waste their time with it, and this was the only idea they could come up with.
Is the UK the first country in the world to train council staff to monitor the smoking ban? I’m surprised their union allowed it. Where will the smokers go – outside on the streets. And don’t office staff look awful huddled outside the front of their buildings desperately puffing away on their fag?
I think this enforcement is far too heavy-handed, a total waste of money and valuable resources. I’m sure that environmental staff would rather be working on recycling and waste diversion projects than being snoops.
What are your views about the smoking ban and its enforcement, and should it be extended throughout Europe too?
Every day I think this Government could surely not come up with another measure more dictatorial than the ones they already have, and that the UK under its rule cannot move any closer to being a police state.
Every day I’m proven wrong. I am a non-smoker, yet I consider this law to be “Nanny State” thinking at its finest (note that MPs, bless them, have exempted themselves – Warning: Offensive (DK)), and the latest development compounds it by being one of the more pernicious law enforcement measures they have come up with.
Although smoking is reprehensible, there is one thing worthy of even greater contempt. That is a form of government which rejects the notion of liberty and the right for us to make our own choices and to live by the consequences of our own choices.
Turkey, despite its many failings, remains an oasis for the smoker. There is no ban on smoking in bars, cafes or restaurants. Non-smoker areas are still the exception not the norm in most places. I am not condoning this approach I merely point it out….and I’m a non-smoker, BTW.
IT, Another reason for Turkey staying out of Europe if it cannot accept an EU smoking ban. As Ian says, it is another indication of a Nanny State, and a dictatorial one too.
How mnay administrators will be required to manage these staff? Will they only work 9-5 Mondays to Fridays? I can’t wait for them to go on strike…
If three Police constabularies are not bothering to enforce new regulations on booster seats for children, why is the enforcement of non-smoking laws so essential?
“Although smoking is reprehensible, there is one thing worthy of even greater contempt. That is a form of government which rejects the notion of liberty and the right for us to make our own choices and to live by the consequences of our own choices”.
Fair point IST but many UK citizens don’t understand the concept of self-reliance, liberty, responsibility and consequences.
I know this is happening and yet I cannot believe it . I sit in the pub I have sat in for ages it pre-dates the Coucil , its pre-dates governemnt in this form at least and now the state is going to come in and treat me like a child in theone place where I was still safe from them.
There will also be coucil snoop lines . A stupid law froma stupid, people hating administration
Agree that the intrusion on civil liberty is a concern – especially as the government seems to be selective about the vices it chooses to clamp down on. Would smokers be fitting of more tolerance if they were to mix hashish with their tobacco ?
But it is lovely – as a non-smoker – not to have to endure the smell and the contamination of clothes and hair. I recently spent six hours in a motorway jam with a smoking taxi driver – I nearly puked.
The government should not have a say on the personal choices of people. It should be up to the owner of the pub or club to decide whether they want to ban smoking in their pubs and clubs.
A heavy-handed approach will never work. The idea has to be put over that it is a dirty, and addictive habit, and by no means ‘cool’. This will a better way of dealing with it.
I must declare a partisan interest here- I am a smoker.
The landlord of my local pub- like many landlords is worried about the effect of the ban on his pub.
I would say 80% of his customers smoke- He makes most of his takings over the weekend during the football- it’s that sort of pub, a traditional friendly pub where everyone knows eachother.
It’s probably all right for the trendy wine bar type places- but when I want a pint, i don’t want to to places like that and nor do many others. I don’t want those to be the only places left.
And obviously, I like a cigarette with my pint.
‘But why should our council staff become law enforcement officers?’
They already are. EHO’s already enforce a lot fo legislation relating to pollution such as noise and odours, food hygiene, housing and health and safety.
‘I’m surprised their union allowed it’
Why? Every time they get a new bit of legislation to enforce their department is in a position to get more and more cash. Unions are populated by as many anti-smokers as Westminster is. Unions have always supported this ‘healthy workplace’ stuff. If anything they will be pushing for free nicotine patches and quit smoking courses.
‘I’m sure that environmental staff would rather be working on recycling and waste diversion projects than being snoops’
If they weren’t enforcing the smoking ban they’d probably be investigating noise pollution complaints. There is a difference betwen ‘Environmental Health’ and ‘Envirnomental Management’ or Environomental Policy’ staff. The latter two spend more time hyping fair-trade coffee and whinging about people not using recycling bins than doing anything useful.
Steven, Yes, you are right, but there must be a limit to what legislation council staff can reasonably be expected to enforce. In Scotland, there have been just 11 fixed penalty notices issued to premises in the last 10 months in breach of the smoking ban, with many councils issuing none at all. So why is it necessary to go to these extremes? Also, most of this kind of snooping will need to be done in the evenings/weekends, are council staff really happy to be taken away from their normal work to do this?
As a doctor who treats a lot of lung cancer I can’t really support smoking. On the other hand if its legal its legal. I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in designated areas if they want to. On the other hand most non-smokers don’t like the experience of being smoked on, and air being air it does seem to get everywhere. So if I ran a pub it would be a completely non-smoking one, but I would not want to impose that on other landlords.
The question would be if any of the bar staff develop cancer in later life would they be able to sue their former employees? I still don’t think we really understand how to quantify the risks of passive smoking. These are the people this legislation is supposed to protect, but if we are going to take this to extremes are smoking parents going to be arrested for child abuse?
So my answer would be: In public buildings and on public transport smoking should be banned. In all others the owner/landlord should have the right to decide whether or not it is permitted(unless the government is prepared to really do what its legislation implies that it should which is to ban the importation and sale of tobacco). People will vote with their feet
As a pipe smoker I’m thinking of emigrating. You can’t do anything now without nanny Blair and his bunch of bent losers sticking their oar in. But then that’s socialism all over – control freakery. Friday night is my night when I go to the pub for a pipe and a pint. Now even that pleasure will be denied me. When smoking is finally outlawed and booze goes the same way I guess they’ll tax sex! More than twice a week mate and you’ve got to pay a congestion charge? Roll on 2010 when we can junk this bunch of dead beats. Trouble is the replacements look even deader!