Smoking panel: Davy Douglas

MEET THE PANEL Name: Davy Douglas Age: 51 Lives: Dumfries Works: Retired firefighter Non-smoker

Having been a non-smoker all my life, I consider this piece of legislation to be reformist and courageous and will protect the right of people to go about their daily business and leisure activities free from passive, potentially harmful exposure to cigarette smoke.

This freedom will also have a beneficial effect on the health of future generations.

It is a freedom that has been denied to me for most of my life, having been brought up in the 50s and 60s when the 'fag' was foremost in society and non-smokers were the odd ones out.

Whether in my parent's home, on the bus or in the cafe or cinema, there was no alternative to inhaling the products of tobacco combustion and as I grew older and became a social drinker I experienced a similar 'atmosphere' inherent in all of our pubs and clubs.

I have worked in many jobs over the years where exposure to second-hand smoke was commonplace, worst of all as a part-time barman. However, I had to admit to a measure of relief when, having joined the Fire Brigade in 1983, I realised that breathing apparatus would afford me a level of protection previously denied in other occupations!

I do, however, understand how deeply entrenched the habit has become, particularly in our pubs and I appreciate the strong feelings amongst many smokers who feel that their civil liberties are being infringed.

I am also very aware of the concerns of many bar owners in the licensed trade who fear a downturn in business when the ban is implemented, but I also retain a measure of optimism that smokers will still visit their local pubs and that their numbers will be swelled by non-smokers returning to join them.

After the initial stormy debate there now seems to be an almost passive acceptance of the way things will be when the ban is enforced but it will be interesting to see exactly what happens in the days and weeks following Sunday 26 March.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and are not endorsed by the BBC.

---

We asked for your views on the ban. The following represents the balance of opinion we received.

I attended one of the Scotish Executive consultation meetings regarding smoking on the 19th August 2004 in Stranraer. The initial reaction to the very first question in the document resulted in an overwhelming 'yes' to a ban. However as the evening evolved the net result was that by debate, the participants left the meeting accepting that controlled designated smoking areas were probably the most appropriate way forward. As I was later to learn, similar results have been noted at other meetings throughout the country. It is therefore a huge mistake by ministers to be so bold as to proclaim that an outright ban on smoking is in the best interests of the country. Smoking bans have a huge impact on the economic and social fabric of the country as we are now finding out, no smoking at pensioners' lunch clubs, farmers are not allowed to smoke while on their tractor, HGV drivers and van drivers are not allowed to smoke in their cabs. All this in the name of health when recent studies show that in the USA, where bans have been in place in certain states for years, that there is no improvement in health to be found. What we will find is an increase in respiratory admissions to our hospitals as smoking increases within the home environment as has been found in Ireland. I must confess to being a non-smoker who believes in choice.
Bill Gibson, Lockerbie

I agree with Alan from Stirling when it comes to people who have had 'a few'. As people are to be banned from having a ciggie in a nightclub, let me give you, whether a smoker or a non-smoker, this scenario. "A guy in a gay nightclub wants a cigarette, but has to go outside; a gang of neds walks past and starts being abusive, the guy who is standing outside having a cigarette gets stabbed for being gay. Obvious? Yes! Especially with all the small minded twits that hang around city centres. Now, as smoking is a legal activity, and this guy; if the smoking ban hadn't been introduced, would have been inside having a cigarette, and more to the point safe! Are his family going to be able to sue MSPs for grievous bodily harm, or for the death of their son, partner, etc? Need I go on? They do say that smoking kills, but this takes it to new depths. I hate to say it, but the first person to die or be injured by this ludicrous ban will be someone doing something that is legal and that they enjoy! It 'might' save lives', but I reckon it will kill a few off too.
Iain Hughes, Brighton

Past 'voluntary' initiatives have failed, as would Alan Patterson's suggestion of allowing pubs to apply for smoking licences: those that didn't get a licence would go out of business. A ban only forces people to quit if it's uniform, and that, I believe, is the ultimate intention here.
Andrew Watkins, Glasgow

Having read some of the comments about a 'blanket ban' being ridiculous and that bars should be allowed to apply for licences to have a smoking area, I have to give my opinion. I'm temporarily living in Spain, where a 'smoking ban' was brought in in December. However, many bars still permit smoking; the only concession to this are signs saying that smoking is bad for your health and for those around you. These, as far as I can see, don't really seem to be having an effect. If there were concessions allowed in Britain, there is the risk that it could just go the same way as here. A blanket ban is the only option available. I, for one, cannot wait until I can go into a bar without smelling like an ash tray afterwards.
Jennifer, Aberdeen

There have been a lot of rather empty statistics bandied about concerning passive smoking and it has been demonised far too harshly. Whilst no-one would deny the harm that smoking can do, I agree that there are many other more harmful hazards in everyday life. Traffic fumes being the main one if you live in the city. I heard a statistic once that barbecues gave off 200 times as much carcinogenic pollution as was encountered in the average passive smoking situation. However, what really infuriates me is the talk of harm to workers who are "forced" to breathe in other people's smoke. It will not come as a great shock to people to learn that there are many, many jobs that involve danger of some form or another and it is part of the job description to endure these.

What would be a sensible solution to this problem would be to have a number of licensed smoking pubs in every district, as Alan says, which catered for people who want to smoke. There would be no expenses with shutting off ventilated smoking areas or people having to congregate in the street. Of course it would be part of the job description that all the staff would have to endure the horrific dangers of passive smoking, like policeman endure violent criminals, like roofers and window-cleaners endure dangerous heights, like machine operators risk arthritis and white finger, like farm workers risk leptospirosis, I could go on.
Richard, Stirling

Unbelievable how easy it is to trash the rights of property owners. The legacy of Hitler lives on. If non-smoking is preferred by the majority, market forces alone will dictate business policy.
Bruce Watson, USA

It seems that if you oppose a blanket smoking ban, you will be accused of being utterly selfish and not caring if the rest of the world dies so you can have your fag. It's a very simplistic way of looking at things which has no relevance to the real world, where things are rarely a case of either/ or. As Alan says, it would be a far better solution to have licensed smoking bars or (sealed off, well air-conditioned) rooms in pubs, so that while those who don't want to breathe smoke don't have to, those who do still have the right to.

I expect shortly to see cars banned from all public spaces, so that those of us who don't drive and don't want to breathe in the exhaust fumes (far more carcinogenic than average passive smoking, especially in Glasgow) don't have to. And I'll take pleasure in telling anyone who complains that they're just so selfish, and should give up their evil habit before it kills everyone else.
Carolyn Black, Glasgow

Alan Paterson tries to speak for reason and compromise but it's pointless in a nation run by a parish council! Might I ask Davy Douglas if 'passive acceptance' is a danger to public health, as in passive acceptance of our daily dose of carcinogens from the combustion engine and industry? Oh, no! Let's demonise one section of society at a time, always bearing in mind that the car is king!
Ian McLean, Glasgow

Alan fails to note the point that a survey of pubs and clubs found that the Voluntary Charter which encouraged the provision of no smoking areas totally failed, with 71% of those surveyed allowing smoking throughout their premises. Voluntary arrangements which 'encourage' the setting up of separate non smoking areas have not worked!
M Hunt, Kilmarnock

"It is a freedom that has been denied to me for most of my life " Excuse me, that's a contradiction about my freedom. Or the freedom of a publican to allow smoking on his premises if he is prepared to install adequate ventilation. Sorry, you don't have argument, only an opinion.
David Sharkey, Glasgow

Whilst nobody in this day and age is going to dispute that smoking is unhealthy and antisocial, I can't help but think that a blanket ban on smoking is going too far. Would it not have been more reasonable to encourage the setting up of separate smoking areas, with decent air conditioning systems in bars, perhaps monitoring air quality. Even allowing some pubs to apply for separate 'smoking licences' with a defined criteria in order to qualify. There are two points which I haven't heard mentioned particularly often. One regards the amount of people which are likely to congregate on the street outside bars in order to smoke (few town and city centre bars in Scotland have separate beer gardens). This could lead to problems, particularly when many of these people will have 'had a few'. Another problem regards the drinking of alcohol in public. Is it not illegal to drink alcohol from an open vessel in the street? So this means that many drinkers are going to be leaving their beverages lying on the bar or their table whilst they nip out for a smoke, i.e. out of their sight for a few minutes. Given the increase in drink spiking that we have been reading about in the papers recently, surely this is another issue which will need to be addressed.
Alan Patterson, Stirling