Where there’s smoking, there’s heated debate | Letters
I am a consultant in stroke medicine who treats people with cardiovascular disease, much of which is directly caused by the tobacco industry. Restricting peopleâs ability to smoke in outdoor public spaces is a vital next step in denormalising smoking (Outdoor smoking ban likely to encourage people to quit, says minister, 30 August). Framing this as an economic issue (for the hospitality industry) or a matter of individual choice (for smokers) is to make at least two category mistakes. Both play into the hands of tobacco companies who, to quote a writer in the Lancetâto regard the value of human life in a completely different sense than the rest of humanityâ.
Smoking is not a matter of personal choice, because smokers are addicted to nicotine. Those who are considering quitting must fight against the weapons of the big tobacco industry, which are aimed at them. Billions are spent on innovative and sinister ways to keep people smoking.
Even if you accept that a smoking ban poses an economic threat to the hospitality industry, you would hope that we have learned from the Eat Out to Help Out fiasco that putting the economic interests of pubs and restaurants above the health of the public may not be an optimal strategy.
Tobacco is unique among substances that humans use: when used exactly as its manufacturer intended, it will harm and eventually kill its consumers. It is categorically different from alcohol and other drugs that humans use and should be treated as such. Denormalizing tobacco use is necessary to reduce the influence and profitability of an industry that is as deadly as it is amoral.
Doctor James Scott
Derby
A ban on smoking in beer gardens is the very last thing pubs need. It will add further pressure to an already-on-its-knees sector that has been repeatedly attacked by various governments. During the pandemic, pubs have been blamed for spreading Covid and have been subject to severe trading restrictions compared to other sectors. Now there are rising energy costs and a lack of consumer confidence. Rather than face the pressure on the sector, the Prime Minister has decided to increase the burden and ensure more pubs close.
Alastair Kerr
South-western regional representative, the Campaign for Pubs
A ban is just a bad idea. The pub I drink in in Sussex has a designated smoking area where no one has to breathe in second-hand smoke. The NHS is on its knees, but not because people are smoking in pub gardens. Obesity is a huge burden on the NHS, so are the government going to ban the sale of crisps in pubs?
Scaring people away from hospitality venues will not help economic growth. People will want to see real results from this government soon. Of the reported 58% are in favor of such a banHow many of them are regular café visitors?
Nick Jarman
Galway, Ireland
I am always amazed at the emphasis the hospitality industry places on smokers. Action on Smoking and Health tells us that 12.9% of adults in the UK there are smokers. It seems commercially sensible to focus on the vast majority of potential customers â those who donât smoke and would probably rather not inhale the second-hand smoke of those who do. Kate Nicholls of UKHospitality talks about the prospect of economic damage but doesnât consider the possibility of business improvement, with 87.1% of potential customers looking forward to the prospect of going out without the impact of second-hand smoke on their enjoyment and health.
Ian Dawson
Heywood, Lancashire
The governmentâs almost evangelical approach to smoking is in stark contrast to its attitude to alcohol, which is responsible for more problems. I have sat as a magistrate for many years and a large proportion of offences were directly or indirectly linked to alcohol. But I have never heard a defence lawyer plead in mitigation on the grounds that their client had smoked too many cigarettes.
Robert Lee
Hampton, London
We are excited to hear about this proposed ban. On many occasions our enjoyment of an outdoor meal has been negatively impacted by nearby smokers who may not realize how offensive it is, let alone that they are forced to passively inhale their tobacco smoke.
Michael and Pauline Miller
Sheffield