|
NORTH OF THE BORDER
Steve Wykes Scotland’s Regional Rep and new MAG Director
As Ian Churchlow’s replacement I felt that it was only fair that I continue his good work by providing a series of articles on biking and political aspects of life from a Scottish perspective. Hopefully these articles will be thought provoking and at times perhaps even slightly controversial. So here goes.
In or perhaps more likely outside any pub in Scotland you can hear people talking about the recent smoking ban which came into force on the 26th March. This ban prohibits smoking in any public place or workplace, which has a roof and walls on more than 50% of its perimeter and extends to most company vehicles.
The aim of the ban is to minimise the risks associated with secondary or passive smoking among workers, a reasonable enough aim, since no one should be compelled to work in an environment which is bad for their health. Also there can be little doubt that smoking is bad for smokers health and by implication prolonged exposure to secondary smoke increases the health risk to non-smokers, though by how much is arguable.
So why the debate and discussion, surely it is beyond dispute that this ban will be beneficial to the health of Scots and to the Scottish economy. Well perhaps all is not so cut and dried as the Scottish Executive would have you believe. While the mechanics of the ban have aspects which would be comical if it were not for the ‘jobs worth’ attitude with which it is being applied.
How has it come to this, a little over a year ago the Scottish Executive ran a consultation on Smoking in Public places. In which passive smoking was identified as causing a 20 – 30% increased risk of lung cancer, being a cause of Heart disease and a cause of asthma in children.
Fairly damming stuff but what does it mean for smokers and non-smokers. To find out I looked at the research and statistics for Lung Cancer on the web.
Figures vary depending on source data, time period investigated and sometimes the slant put on the data. This aside, in the UK over the average lifetime, men have approximately 8% chance of contracting lung cancer, while ladies have a 4.5% risk of contracting the disease. Smokers account for 90% of all lung cancer cases (38,500 diagnosed in UK in 2002), and made up around 30% of the male population and 27% of women at that time.
Which implies that non-smokers have a risk of contracting lung cancer of about 2% for men and 1.35% for women.
So cutting out all exposure to secondary smoke ought to reduce the risk for non-smokers to about 1.5% for men and 1.0% for women. About 1000 cases per year in the UK.
So far pretty conclusive, but is it telling the whole story.
Estimates on all the effects of passive smoking in the workplace by ASH put the death toll at about 600 per year, while around 50 of these deaths happen in the hospitality industry.
Passive smoking in the home accounts for about four or five times the number of deaths attributable to workplace exposure.
In Scotland with about 8% of the UK population, but a slightly higher incidence of cancer this equates to about 60 deaths per year in the workplace and approximately 250 deaths at home.
So clearly the greatest risk occurs in the home and displacement of smokers from pubs and clubs where the ban is in force into the home is likely to increase this risk, unless numbers decrease significantly.
The Irish experience does not bode too well in this respect, for although there was a reduction in smoking of about 6% when the ban came in, some recent reports indicate sales have recovered since then, with smoking being seen as cool in some circles.
While after the first year of the Irish ban increases in lung disease among children had increased by about 10%.
So it would appear that some if not all of the benefits of a workplace ban have been offset by increased risk at home.
Nor does the Irish economic picture reflect the waves of self congratulation coming from Scottish Politicians.
A 20 to 30% drop in trade in some sectors of the hospitality industry, has seen around 7,500 jobs lost across Ireland. Scotland with a similar drinking culture is unlikely to fair better.
Would a voluntary adoption of smoke free areas in pubs and clubs have provided a better compromise? Certainly landlords and owners could have assessed the effects on their businesses and determined if they wanted to be smoke free or not.
A number of restaurants and a few pubs had banned smoking, so with a little more encouragement a choice of smoking or non-smoking establishments could have been a reality. Providing drinkers and smokers with a choice.
But the anti smoking lobby argued that voluntary arrangements would not work and staff were still being put at risk. Fair but unless I’ve missed something no one was being compelled to work in a smoky environment.
And if staff had real concerns, then their reluctance to accept posts where smoking was permitted, would have raised costs and speeded up the trend towards non-smoking establishments.
Yet now the claims are that the ban has overwhelming support. Complied with yes by and large, but supported I’m not so convinced. After all 80% of the respondents to the consultation had accepted a ban in restaurants, but felt that banning smoking in clubs and pubs should be up to the owners not statute.
What has this to do with biking I hear you ask, well not a lot directly, but by careful manipulation of statistics, ignoring contradictory arguments, democratic opinion and the rights of the individual to choose.
Any section of our society can be disenfranchised for the "common good". We as bikers are not immune, for even though we may cause no harm to others, the cost of accidents to society could provide ample excuse to curtail our freedom if we are not vigilant.
Finally some bizarre aspects of the ban to consider, before it is too late to change things in England.
Publicans and bar staff who smoke have to leave their workplace to indulge in a cigarette even when the pub is closed.
Commercial drivers can’t smoke in their vehicles even if no one else is present and smoking shelters require 50% of their walls to be removed to comply with the law.
Oh and if you are sent to Prison for failing to pay a smoking fine, fear not facilities for smoking will be provided.
|
