[Angela]

Smokers should be given time off work to quit before the 1 July ban comes into force in England, NHS experts say. Where will nicotine-lovers unwilling - or unable - to quit be able to have a puff?

The Health Act 2006 says "smoke-free" places will be public places and workplaces which are "enclosed or substantially enclosed".

So no more smoking in pubs, cinemas, offices, factories, shopping centres and on public transport. But smoking rooms can be provided in "any premises where a person has his home, or is living permanently or temporarily", such as hotels, care homes and prisons.


THE ANSWER
Smoking rooms in prison, hotels and care homes
Open air
On stage during a performance
Offshore oil rigs
Specialist tobacco shops
Always in own home, even in presence of health visitor

All pubs and restaurants come under the ban. The government had initially intended to exempt pubs with no food, but backed down after consultation - MPs also voted for a total ban. Nor did private clubs escape the ban after efforts to get an exemption failed.

For premises to be classed as partially enclosed, they must have walls around half their perimeter and a roof. A canvas awning can count as a roof.

Smoking solo

A workplace requires more than one person to work there for the ban to apply. So the cab of a lorry becomes a workplace if it is used to carry a passenger. The Road Haulage Association says this amounts to a blanket ban because a second driver is required to conduct testing, and that might only be twice a year.

"I wouldn't say they're happy about it but I think they will accept it and obey it because the penalties are quite strict," says spokeswoman Kate Gibbs.

Similarly, company car drivers must adhere to the ban if they share their car with any colleagues. Owners who give a lift to a workmate should comply, says Jeremy Bennett, editor of the website Company Car Driver. And several companies which lease fleets of vehicles that are used by third parties have already introduced the ban and put the "no smoking" stickers on the dashboards.

Army barracks are not named in the legislation, but the Ministry of Defence outlawed smoking in shared premises last year. But offshore oil rigs will be exempt.

There are some exceptions to the ban, although some experts have praised the clear wording of the new law.

"There are always going to be some anomalies but the legislation has been well drafted in my view and these have been minimised," says health psychologist Robert West, director of tobacco studies at Cancer Research.

People will not be penalised for smoking in their own homes, even if this exposes others to second-hand smoke, including health visitors, nannies, cleaners and tradespeople. But actors and comedians onstage will be allowed to light up for the sake of the "artistic integrity of a performance", unlike in Scotland. When Edinburgh festival actor Mel Smith threaten to flout the ban by lighting up a cigar onstage, the city council said it would close the venue. He backed down.

The Department of Health has resisted copying Scotland's example in naming the grounds of hospitals as smoke-free, but many in England have that status already due to regulations of the local NHS Trust.

Police interview rooms are exempt in Scotland but not in England. And hotel rooms are not automatically smoke-free.

Residential psychiatric institutions in England can have a smoking room for one year but must impose the ban from 1 July 2008.

But people sampling goods in a specialist tobacconist are exempt, as long as there is a sign on the door warning people that it is not smoke-free.

People caught smoking by local authority enforcement officers will be fined £50, reduced to £30 if paid within 15 days. But, if the case comes to court, the fine could rise to £200.

Source: BBC

[Charlotte]

Some good laughs in there, Angela

Seriously, tho' ... "what a tangled web we weave" ...

[VikingPhotography]

Y'know, this has been in place in Scotland for months now and it's very much a positive thing - there have been extremely few instances of folk deliberately flouting the law and it's made my family trips to shopping centres and restaurants much more enjoyable.

All the fuss and noise made by publicans and restauranteurs about 'loss of revenue' has come to naught - perhaps in the first two weeks of the ban there was a dip, but then folk began to realise that they enjoyed a pint and a good meal far more than they did a cigarette

[orangepeel]

I'll second that.

Another benefit is you find whole new social area outside pubs. In these places you can actually hear yourself think!

/me switches off grumpy old man mode.

Dammit! Switch is broken. Hey ho.

[fionaB]

im gonna argue the other side of the coin....... well both maybe......... i personally dont mind going outside in the rain, wind, snow, shivering getting wet...just to enjpy something i choose to use my right to do...... use a legal substance...... BUt in the last year ( has it been a year already? ) where i live has gone from having 9/10 pubs/ social clubs open 7 days a week to having two clubs left open all week....... two pubs closed... one club saying they only have funds for about another year or so and then they will close. and when did this happen? yep during the last year......... so logically......... nope of course it isnt having an effect of the finances of licensed premisess.... CRAP. of course it is...
I see no reason why pubs shuldnt be allowed to have a smoking room, with so much technology they can surely put in air conditining to remove the smoke etc.
i have no probs with baning smoking in eateries etc......

But did you know that i am not allowedto have a cigarette in my home within an hour if i have a nurse doctor council worker or ANY OTHER workman visiting my home. which is a laugh cos you never know when the council are gonna appear.

doesnt really bother me again personally as i choose to smoke outside the house anyway. BUT i pay my rent so who should have the ability to say what i do in my home providing its LEGAL..... and that is my point. if they want to ban smoking they should ban the entire product........ but no they want to have their cake and eat it....... yeah they want the taxes , money out of us smokers pockets. but we can only do it when THEY say we can....... unfair?? just a bit...........

so for those who say its positive? ...... ask the bar workers who have been paid off in the last year........... have a look at the empty pubs and clubs in rural and less popullated areas.......

I drove thru a town in ayrshire the other week and passed no less than 6 pubs that were closed down. there wasnt a single open licensed premises in the town. and im not talking about a little village, but a reasonable sized town.

positive? yes maybe to those who live in big towns and cities....... to others...... well i wouldnt like to say.

Fi

[orangepeel]

Personally, my heart bleeds purple ****. Smoking and drinking do a hell of a lot more damage than other illegal drugs. Worse, it's not the smokers or drinkers that end up paying for the damage. It's the rest of us.

[Dave Canon]

Where I worked, smoking was banned in buildings about 8 years ago and about 12 months ago smoking was banned completely on the site. This did mean that smokers had some time to adjust and many gave up smoking. Quite a number of those were not upset with the ban because it helped them give up. Although never adicted, I did smoke for a few years in my youth many decades ago. I do support the smoking ban but have sympathy with those who now have to make a difficult adjustment.

[fionaB]

Originally Posted by orangepeel

Personally, my heart bleeds purple ****. Smoking and drinking do a hell of a lot more damage than other illegal drugs. Worse, it's not the smokers or drinkers that end up paying for the damage. It's the rest of us.

so like i said.ban it. ban smoking AND ban drinking..... close all the clubs and pubs. that way there wont be anyone to moan about going outside.

Non smokers moan about their rights........... but who bothers about the smokers rights........ ah thats ok we dont have any i forgot.

Fi

[fionaB]

its not a difficult adjustment at all..... it really doesnt bother me.......... what bothers me is the way folk go on about it haveing no impact on the social establishments where folks like to go out and enjpy themselves and have a wee smoke while doing it........... not just pubs etc......... bingo halls is another example.... we have just lost ours as well... ok so who cares if thats another 20 or so folk from a town already being hit by pay offs being thrown on the dole. thats ok as long as the non smokers are happy.

Fi

[sejanus]

I'm going to disagree with you, if I may, Fiona and say that, long term, I think the pubs and restaurants will benefit.

I think that smokers fail to understand just how much their habit distresses others. My wife, for example, is made physically sick by nicotine, as are many other people. It's the smoke that others object to because it drifts everywhere and, if you're affected by it, life is intolerable near anyone smoking. As a result of this, many people don't use pubs and other places like that because there's no pleasure for them, if smoking is allowed.

I know that we plan to go to lots of places once the ban's operational and a lot of people I've spoken to have said they'll go out a lot more often as well. We'd love to have Sunday lunch at a local pub and we like Indian food, after July we'll be able to enjoy that and much more that we can't at the moment.

This is not to say that I'm unsympathetic to smokers, provided they're sympathetic to non-smokers. A few years ago, someone on a TV programme suggested a 'smokeless cigarette' - basically something like an inhaler that could be used without affecting those around them. I have never understood why such a product isn't on the market because it's got to benefit everyone.

In the meantime, I hope your life isn't too disrupted by the ban.

[fionaB]

i do respect your views sejanus........ BUT i think you are in the minority, the ban has been in Scotland for over a year and although i do agree with you to a point about resteraunts ( i always have hated smoke round food) but pubs and clubs wont beneift and I think after over a year if they were they would have started to by now. i think its about the people who go out to these places...... the folks that tend to frequent social clubs are not necessarily all the same type of folk who frequent resteraunts.
When folks go out for a pint or a drink round here they want to go out and relax and enjpy themseleves and that includes having a cigarette.
The sales in off liscenses up here have went right up cos folks would much rather sit in the hosue and have a drink and a smoke and chill, cos they cant now do it on a night out. as i said before i think it is far more prevalent in rural areas thant he big towns and cities, but that fact makes it no less relevant.

Fi

[Rob Barron]

Sorry Fiona but you are making this into an issue that is not there: you keep on saying 'to keep the non-smokers happy....' when in fact this has nothing to do with who smokes and who doesn't. The ban is a health issue and has nothing to do with 'rights' except for the right of ALL people to not suffer the tremendous impact of smoking, both directly and passively (which we all now know for a fact is every bit as deadly) and the fact is there is NO technology that can remove even close to all the noxious elements of expelled cigarette smoke.... certainly none that is affordable and practical for all but the largest of public companies.

In England we will not have that stupid law that says you can't smoke within an hour of a public worker coming to your home: the home is exempt even when nurses and health workers are visiting. That might be an issue for change in Scotland, I don't know what the legal restrictions are there.

The fact is smoking kills. It costs the health service that we all pay for billions of pounds each year not to mention the lives ruined. The talk of 'smokers rights' is a non-starter. Who says we have the 'right' to do something? A right can never be a true right if it impinges on the rights of others so a smoker cannot have the right to affect the health of a non-smoker. Smoking rooms are ineffective, that is a fact. Strewth, my neighbour in the flat below me smokes, there is a thick layer of concrete between us but we frequently get a strong smell of smoking coming into our flat! Smoke is not only dangerous when it is visible, just because you can't see the smoke does not mean you are then free of the risks imposed by breathing in the fumes. These particulates permeate all sorts of areas, even if there is an air-filter on the premises.

You say pubs have closed down but I would have to query that. The fact a pub is no longer in business is no indicator that it is the smoking ban that has caused it. You said there is a sizeable town where not a single pub is left in business. Sorry but that is no way true: where have all the drinkers gone? Are you seriously suggesting that all the many thousands of drinkers (they don't ALL smoke!) have all abandoned the pubs in favour of a relaxing drink at home?

There are loads of places that have brought in smoking bans and the consistent results in every case have been the exact reverse of what you have said: pub attendance and people eating out in restaurants has increased by an average of 30% because a lot of people are now going out who didn't before due to the smokey atmopheres. Ireland brought in the ban in 2004; the results have been overwhelmingly positive. New York brought in the ban in 2005: again the results have been superb. There are other European countries as well as further afield who have all done this and not one country has reported a net fall in business but in all cases a rise has been clearly evident.

I do of course entirely agree that governments have done some of these things for ulterior motives: hell, they're politicians, they never do anything else! But the fact is, smoking is on a serious decline, smokers were once a considerable majority but are now in the minority nationally. Research is predicting that a further half a million people intend to give up smoking altogether because of the ban. That can only be a good thing.

There is a changing mindset that will hopefully persuade more and more people that smoking is not worth it, financially, healthwise, family wise, and so on. If the ban hastens that mindset then I am all for it, not because I want to impinge on someone's 'rights' but because we ALL have the right to breathe!

Having said all that, let me also say I completely support calls on the government to make serious money available for resources to help people stop smoking. If that means giving free Nicorette, patches, etc. then so be it. The investment would be worth it.

Just a thought: smoking twenty cigarettes a day costs a Canon 30D, an EX 580 flashgun, a 17-40mm L series lens and enough left over to go on a photographic holiday abroad!

Cheers,
Rob