Problem Solution Essay about Smoking in Public Places

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Problem Solution Essay about Smoking in Public Places

The subject of consideration in this work is the Smoking Ban Act, a law banning smoking in public places, which was adopted by the British Parliament in 2006 and entered into force on 1 July 2007. The aim of the discussions is to present the political and social considerations of the introduction of the Smoking Ban Act in public places in the UK since 2007.

The conditions for the implementation of these rules, as well as the attitude of the main political forces in the UK and society itself, will therefore be carefully outlined. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the legislation in question was not the first in the British Isles to address this issue. Since the 1960s, the Government’s public health policy in London has increasingly focused on reducing the number of deaths and diseases caused by smoking. These initiatives reduced smoking levels in society from 70 percent in 1962 (the year the Royal College of Physicians published its groundbreaking study found that smoking causes lung cancer) to 24 percent in 2005. However, smoking still caused about a hundred thousand deaths a year, and passive smoking was blamed for about eleven thousand of these deaths. In addition, smoking has increasingly been shown to be an important factor in causing health inequalities in society. Evidence of the health effects of passive smoking (and a decrease in the proportion of the population who smoke) has increased interest in smoking in public places. (The Ban on Smoking in Public Places, op. cit., p. 107.)

In 1998, the Labour government published the first ever so-called White Paper on tobacco, cigarettes and continued the tradition of relying on a voluntary approach to controlling smoking in public places. At the beginning of the 21st century, it was clear that the level of compliance with the voluntary ban was low and the Government in London, also in the context of outdoor smoking, was increasingly pushing for a ban on statutory smoking. However, this would represent a kind of leap in the UK Government’s efforts to regulate private behavior and would risk significant opposition within (and outside) parliament. The manifesto presented by the Labour Party in 2005 proposed only a partial ban. However, this has not come to fruition. (Institute for Government, 2012, p. 99.) It should also be pointed out that, at present, a total ban on smoking in public places is widely accepted and its overall compliance is at a relatively high level. Further reflection will allow an analysis of how this particular breakthrough has been achieved, in decades-long efforts to reduce smoking rates in public places, despite deep ambivalence within the UK Government itself.

All the work consists of three main parts. This is an introduction that set out the general substance and need for social policy to be implemented and methodological assumptions, the core part is a key body of work, as well as a summary that will describe the basic effects of the changes introduced and determine the degree of achievement of the research objective.

The presentation of the very moment of the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places in 2007 and its conditions requires a few years of withdrawal when the first decisions were taken in this regard. In 1997, the country held an election in which the Labour Party won. According to the source material, the new Labour government initially had a very mixed attitude towards tobacco – although it raised tax rates from 3 percent to 5 percent on tobacco products, it had a controversial position on exempting Formula One from the EU directive on advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products that was unfavorable to it. Tessa Jowell, who was appointed British Minister of Public Health in 1997, was considered a supporter of smoking. However, she quickly decided to take action to ‘address health inequalities’ due to smoking in society. (European Commission.2011) In practice, however, between 1997 and 2001, the government was unable to take decisive action. The most important of these activities are the Smoking Kills (1998), the government’s first White Paper on smoking, particularly on education, voluntary agreements with tobacco companies, and nicotine replacement therapy – all aimed at making it easier for Britons to quit smoking and reduce the impact of this addiction mainly on children and young people. These proposals were met with a growing number of calls for the government to take more active action to achieve significant health benefits from the move away from smoking and the impact of tobacco smoke. The government’s Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health issued a report in 1998 explicitly stating that passive smoking is the cause of lung cancer and coronary artery disease in adults. In 2002, the British Medical Association (BMA) called for a ban on smoking in public places because of the risk to non-smokers. (Institute for Government.2011)

As evidence of the risks of passive smoking gathered, there has been a change in the attitude of the British public towards this issue. In the late 1990s, smoking was already banned in many offices, as well as in closed public places such as cinemas and means of transport, but at the same time only in a few pubs, bars, and restaurants. As a result, these facilities have become a particular subject of debate on whether legislation is required to protect workers and customers from exposure to secondhand smoke. The government continued to advocate self-regulation of tobacco behavior. In July 1999, the Committee on Health and Safety proposed a Code of Conduct for Passive Smoking at Work. (gov. The UK.2020) Although a Code of Conduct has been developed, this approach has never been implemented due to concerns among the hospitality industry and tobacco manufacturers about profits and job losses. In the meantime, the Department of Health has decided to enter into discussions with the hospitality industry in the UK with a view to concluding a voluntary agreement on the matter. Introduced in September 1999, the so-called Charter of Public Places was signed by fourteen industry associations. The agreement states that 50 percent of all premises should adopt a formal smoking policy, while 35 percent of them should limit smoking to only designated areas or introduce adequate ventilation. However, despite progress towards these targets, the percentage of smoke-free places has increased from only 1% to 2%. There was no strategy in the Labour government to extend these measures. (The Ban on Smoking in Public Places, op. cit., p. 102.) A similar position was also represented by the Conservative Party. Its representatives – as was the case in the Labour Party – declared that the market would regulate itself and that the owners of individual premises should be given the freedom to establish smoke-free spaces.

The government’s chief medical officer, Dr Liam Donaldson, wanted to use his position to make the case for stronger action. In June 2003, its annual report (for 2002) was published with a clear recommendation that the UK should move to a mandatory ban on smoking in public places, as voluntary agreements with individual industries did not (quickly enough) reduce the health risks of passive smoking. This was not only a bold departure from previous government policy but also encountered unforeseen difficulties. Mr Donaldson described the timing of the report’s publication as ‘terrible’, due to the resignation of the then Health Minister Alan Milburn, on the eve of the planned publication date. As this annual report was always drafted independently, it was only shown to ministers the night before publication. Mr. Donaldson spoke to Mr. Milburn about the report, but the Secretary of State stepped down. John Reid was appointed in his place. This caused a short delay in the publication of the document. However, the final publication of the CMO report meant that it was already inevitable that the issue of smoking bans in public places had to be fixed and resolved in Labour’s 2005 electoral program. (The Ban on Smoking in Public Places, op. cit., p. 102.)

The debate on this issue has become very fierce. During this intense debate, two critical decisions had to be taken. Firstly, whether or not to opt for such legislation at all. It was clear that the existing voluntary approach did not work, as only a few pubs were banned from smoking. The lack of self-regulation has forced the government to adopt tougher measures. In this respect, ASH considered John Reid’s contribution to be particularly critical. As the only health minister who has held such a strong negative stance so far and has not influenced other members of the government at all to overcome resistance to legislation in this area. Mr. Reid was a heavy smoker and quit smoking only 18 months before taking office. He was skeptical about calls for a total ban on smoking in public places. Speaking at a Labour Big Conversation meeting in June 2004, Mr. Reid presented the issue in class terms, suggesting people from ‘ lower socio-economic backgrounds give very little pleasure, and one of them may be smoking’. (Guardian.2004) This denunciation, contrary to the intentions of Mr. Reid himself, was met with very serious public criticism. This was a turning point in the debate on smoking in public places. It quickly became apparent that public expectations far exceeded and overtook the actions of the then, government. The next key decision was what should be included in the legislation if it is to be enacted. Although the government agreed that action on smoking in enclosed public places was justified, the question of proportionality of state intervention remained up for discussion at all times. The fundamental argument concerned the extent to which the exercise of the rights of one individual should give the possibility of breach of the rights of others. There was no question of making smoking illegal; the idea was how to minimize the ability of smoking to endanger others, provided that smoking remains a lawful activity. There have been ongoing discussions with the CMO about the scope of the ban.

Click Here To Order Now!