Smoking Ban - The Isle Of Man

[%age]

Well, there hasn't been a smoking thread for a few days has there........

 

From Manx Radio - Smoking Ban Consultation Disappointing

 

I think it is rather good that there has been a 'disappointing' response to the consultation and to my mind shows that we are all in favour of the ban.

 

It is rather shameful that the Isle of Man is the last place to ban smoking in public places in the British Isles, rather than the first place and shows us as being rather backward I would say.

[xbones]

Or maybe they just want to see what reaction there is from the rest of the UK, and then can make pre-empt any problems and act accordingly?

[Albert Tatlock]

Or maybe they just want to see what reaction there is from the rest of the UK, and then can make pre-empt any problems and act accordingly?

A sensible approach to any proposed legislation. Far too much press-driven and reactionary-legislation has got through in the UK over the last 10 years, much of it ill-thought out - and much of it also having an influence on the island.

[lectro]

Or maybe they just want to see what reaction there is from the rest of the UK, and then can make pre-empt any problems and act accordingly?

A sensible approach to any proposed legislation. Far too much press-driven and reactionary-legislation has got through in the UK over the last 10 years, much of it ill-thought out - and much of it also having an influence on the island.

 

Any delay just propagates the idea that the island is backward and behind the times. What with all the bad press the island gets through ignorance (tax haven, birching, homosexuality illegal etc) there's really no need to add fuel to the fire.

 

The legislation has worked well in many other countries.

[ans]

SMOKING SERIOUSLY HARMS YOU AND OTHERS AROUND YOU

 

When I smoked, I always made sure I bought packs with the 'SMOKING HARMS YOUR UNBORN BABY' warning. I used to see those poor saps buying the ones that warned them they would give them lung cancer and chuckling smugly to myself at my own cunning.

[Grumble]

Blah, blah...

 

Smokers on the other hand, can stand around and ACTIVELY POISON and cause GENUINE DISCOMFORT to huge numbers of people, and be safe in the knowledge that no one can do a damn thing about it.

 

Blah, pottymouth, blah

 

So campaign for a total ban on tobacco...and find some real (rather than Thought Police) evidence that secondary exposure to cigarette smoke 'poisons' people. In a way that aerosols, perfumes, cooking, open fires, air pollution, natural airborne stuff doesn't.

 

And before you cite Roy Castle, remember that lungs aren't designed to be pressurised and used like a trumpet player does either.

[Albert Tatlock]

Or maybe they just want to see what reaction there is from the rest of the UK, and then can make pre-empt any problems and act accordingly?

A sensible approach to any proposed legislation. Far too much press-driven and reactionary-legislation has got through in the UK over the last 10 years, much of it ill-thought out - and much of it also having an influence on the island.

 

Yes it must be a real bonus for you that you can continue to poison innocent people for a few extra months, eh?

We are going around in circles here, nobody is listening, as this debate has reached the same level of religious fundamentalism as global warming.

 

Overall, I see this an an attack on people's civil liberties, by taking away the rights of people to congregate in a place of their choice (a private club or a place - pub - officially designated) and clearly signed. IMO, this whole debate has much wider conertations which many people seem to be ignoring.

 

Make no mistake, the England compromise was stymied, not by the government, but by the pub trade in their lobbying for a 'level playing field'. This was a business decision. Here the government have the two major breweries lobbying against the ban, and are in a position where everywhere else in the British Isles is placing a ban, yet ignoring a golden opportunity to follow some of the European countries that operate a sensible compromise (especially on an island with many pubs that do not have the facilities to offer 'outside smoking' - and are likely to go bust and/or be turned into flats).

 

As for protecting employees - if it is legal for an insurance company to penalise people for smoking, then why not the same for employment law - if an employee should wish to continue working in such a designated place? If this is so important, who is going to protect the nurses and prison warders where smoking will still be allowed?

 

Some of the issues being missed include:

 

In terms of the legislation and the original questionnaire that was sent out that led to this proposed ban:

 

The analysis of the questionnaire is statistically unsound and biased. Moreover, the consultation and proposed Act fail to acknowledge, or address in significant depth, a wide variety of important issues.

 

Comments relating to: "Proposed Legislation on Smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places - Key Findings of Responses to a Public Consultation"

 

“Summary of results

91.9% of (6623) household residences are in favour of a ban on smoking in workplaces and enclosed public spaces and 88.1% of (430) registered businesses are similarly in favour. In addition, 92.3% of (3706) online responses were in favour of a ban on tobacco smoking. Less than 10% of 10769 responders are not in favour of a ban.”

 

i. According to the 1996 Isle of Man census, there were 29,377 households in the Isle of Man, which has no doubt increased. Using this figure, the 6623 households that responded represent only 22.5% of the number of the total number households on the Isle of Man and the 91.9% in favour of a ban in workplaces and enclosed public spaces means only 20.72% of households agree with this view. It is usual for households to consist of many people, whose opinions on a variety of subjects are likely to differ substantially. With only one form to respond, the view of a particular household is unlikely to reflect all of its occupants, and in the field of statistics, should only be allowed to reflect the view of the respondent who completed the form and not considered as representing the views of others living within that household. This means that only one person in each household can be considered to have actually expressed the view and not the household.

 

ii. A telephone call to the companies registry reveals that there are well over 30,000 companies registered on the Isle of Man, (other websites state 48,000 in 1998). Thus 430 company respondents represent only 9 to 14% of registered businesses.

 

iii. What checks were carried out to ensure that any one respondent did not fill in two or more questionnaires purporting to come from different households? With regard to the 3706 online respondents, what checks and guarantees were in place (e.g. e-mail registration, recording IP address etc.) to ensure that each respondent was given only one vote? Web surveys are not a reliable method of recording data unless adequate measures are in place to ensure that any person in favour of, or not in favour of, an issue cannot repeatedly select the “In Favour” or “Not in Favour” option. If no such measures were in place, this element of the response should be ignored as being statistically unsound. Similarly, what guarantees were in place to stop a person that had responded to the questionnaire delivered to their house from responding again via the associated website and being represented two or more times? Would the Isle of Man government accept that this same website could be used for election purposes? Would the Isle of Man government ban such events as the TT races and Manx Grand Prix based on a similar consultation, given the statistical risk of death and injury from participating in these events?

 

“Analysis was conducted by the Isle of Man Post Office”.

 

iv. I was not aware that the Isle of Man Post Office employed statisticians qualified to carry out such an analysis. What were the qualifications and experience of those that carried out the ‘analysis’ and what checks on responses were carried out (as in iii above)?

 

Comments relating to: The questionnaire

 

Question 1: Having considered the health risks associated with passive smoking, do you think that further action needs to be taken to reduce people’s exposure to second-hand smoke?

 

v. Overall, this question is phrased to make a “Yes” response sound positive, while making a “No” response sound negative. This has the effect of biasing the respondent's answer.

 

Question 2. Would you support a law that would make enclosed public places smoke free?

 

vi. As question 1 is phrased to make a “Yes” response sound positive, while making a “No” response sound negative, the answer to question 1 therefore biases the respondents answer to question 2.

 

Question 3. If a law to ban smoking in workplaces and enclosed public spaces is introduced, do you think there should be any exemptions to it?

 

vii. The dramatic changes in response to question 3 highlight the fundamental flaws, bias and limitations of questions 1 and 2. The number of valid comments indicates that people have not been given sufficient information and have themselves been forced to point out factors which should have been included in material given to them and reflected in the design of the questionnaire i.e. the information given to them for consideration, and the questions asked of them therefore did not reflect a balanced view. The current proposed Act is clearly based on the answers to questions 1 and 2 only.

 

“The detrimental effects of smoking have been a major public health concern since 1962 when the Royal College of Physicians, UK, published ‘Smoking and Health’. This groundbreaking report clearly evidenced a direct link between smoking and life threatening diseases such as lung cancer and coronary heart disease, and called for urgent government intervention, recommending actions such as a public education programme, increased taxation, restrictions on tobacco advertising, greater steps to restrict the sale of tobacco to children and restrictions on smoking in public places”.

 

viii. This statement implies that the same research evidence and risk levels on the effects of being an ‘active smoker’ apply to those of being a ‘passive smoker’, where the sets of research results are wholly different.

 

“Since then, progress has been made to reduce levels of smoking, and establish smoke free zones through a variety of measures and policies. However, there is still a long way to go. Smoking is a habit that is deep rooted within Isle of Man society. Recent figures show that about 20-25% of adults are smokers. The habit remains the biggest single cause of preventable illness and premature death on the Isle of Man, placing considerable strain on the local Health Service. Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS between £1.4bn and £1.7bn annually in the UK (equivalent to more than £1.7 million per year on the Island), whilst the NHS in Scotland spends an estimated £200 million per annum (at present day prices) on hospital treatment for diseases caused by tobacco use”.

 

ix. Little effort has been made to establish or enforce smoke free zones or ventilated areas in public houses on the Isle of Man.

 

x. The islands actual income from tobacco duty is approximately £20 million per annum. On the isle of Man governments own figures, each year this covers the associated Health Service expenses ten-fold, and in addition, would allow for the cost of building one new properly project-managed Nobles hospital every eight years.

 

“Non-smokers who are exposed to ETS in the workplace have their risk of lung cancer increased by 16-19%. Passive smoking also increases the possibility of a heart attack by 25-30%”.

 

xi. In this context, this is a misuse of statistics seeking to take advantage of peoples general inability to understand statistical data. For example, the chances of winning the UK lottery jackpot are 1 in 14 million, but if you were to say to someone that by purchasing an additional ticket they would increase their chances of winning the jackpot by 100%. – this actually means that instead of 1 in 14 million they have a 2 in 14 million chance of winning, clearly still very unlikely.

 

Other Issues (either not considered, or not considered in sufficient depth) in the islands smoking ‘debate’.

 

The proposed Isle of Man Act and Associated Consultation upon which it is based:

 

• Reflects our governments inability to properly address this issue. It is unrealistic to believe that this Act will stop smoking or reduce it significantly, when the real issue is that many children (30% have tried smoking by year 10 according to Lyz Moore, schools' co-ordinator for tobacco education in the Department of Health and Social Security) and many are often addicted to cigarettes long before they would smoke in public and visit public houses etc. This act does not address the problem and will do nothing other than encourage smokers to smoke at home in the presence of own their children, thus re-enforcing take-up of the habit.

• Is likely to lead to children to further view smoking as “anti-establishment” and encourage them further.

• Fails to address that a ban on smoking in ALL enclosed public places will be unpopular and create resentment, as it is unfair to criminalise a quarter of the community for indulging in a habit that is not, in itself, illegal. More worryingly, fails to acknowledge that people have a human right to congregate, even in a private club, to indulge in something that is not illegal where they would not impact the health of others not wishing to partake. Private clubs are just that - private places.

• Given sentencing trends on the island, this act is highly likely to result in people going to prison where, ironically, many people believe smoking should be allowed to continue.

• Other than through this ‘consultation’ exercise, the public was not generally consulted in the debates leading up to this proposed legislation, and government and health officials have led these debates mainly alongside publicans and breweries, with the majority of debate focused on commerce and health. Moreover, as the proposed Act bears no resemblance to the majority of the comments raised during the consultation, in its present form the proposed Act demonstrates that the majority of these comments have been ignored.

• Does not address the issue that pressure from businesses for an all round ban and a so called ‘level playing field’ is not in the interest of consumers. Businesses may pay taxes, but it is consumers that pay businesses and businesses should adapt to meet changing consumer demands. Given that there is, apparently, such a demand for non-smoking premises why does the government believe such premises have not already appeared in the market place? This lack of debate also raises significant questions with regard to the Manx politics of policing the behaviour of its less powerful populations, who are statistically less likely to understand the detail of any such one-off consultation, yet who are far more likely to be affected by its consequences.

• Fails to acknowledge the likely reconfiguration of the division between pub and street life, when smokers will stand outside pubs to smoke often for the entire evening, with increased safety risks for both customers and staff by increasing the potential for harassment and violence.

• Fails to acknowledge that public houses on the Isle of Man have long been identified as sites of community, solidarity and sociability.

• Will damage many more businesses and organisations on the Island than has so far been previously acknowledged or discussed.

• Is unclear in instances such as: where one person works from his/her own home, where households employ cleaners, babysitters, tradesmen etc.

• Fails to address that totally pure air is unachievable and the range and level of pollutants already present in enclosed public spaces, particularly in towns, from vehicle emissions though unseen, are often similar in level and content to those associated with passive smoking. The proposed Act and consultation has failed to consider in sufficient depth whether properly installed and maintained ventilation equipment can protect non-smokers from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. This consultation has failed to take into account evidence provided to other enquiries regarding the current capability of ventilation equipment, that are seen as perfectly capable of removing the problem of ETS from e.g. most public houses.

• Fails to acknowledge the possibility of issuing regulations on the specification and maintenance of ventilation equipment, and the possibility of setting acceptable limits for exposure to ETS as happens with other pollutants, and to allow standards of clean air to be enforced where smoking is permitted.

• Sees the apparent vulnerability of some groups e.g. pregnant women, people suffering from asthma etc. to even very low levels of ETS as justification for the introduction of a ban in ALL enclosed spaces, even when there are greater social issues such as smoking in the presence of children at home, coal fires, alcohol, dampness and poverty (the most dangerous factor of all) that impact peoples health on the island.

• Changes the potential future of Manx politics. This is an important single issue to many people, not just those within the 25% of the population affected, and motivation enough perhaps for some individuals and private business owners affected by such legislation to stand as candidates in elections or change their voting habits as they see the island becoming intolerant – e.g. moving further away from Liberal democracy and any willingness to compromise.

• Fails to acknowledge or address that the employment rights of workers in the hospitality industry can be adapted and protected in law, not forcing them to work in such environments (including enforcing adequate ventilation systems and their right not to work in a particular area) and protecting their interests should they wish to leave such establishments. Also fails to acknowledge the higher prevalence of smoking amongst workers in the hospitality sector and that a significant proportion of workers would be prepared to work in premises where smoking was permitted. Removes the right of existing employees to smoke in establishments where smoking is currently permitted, often by customer demand, and where adult customers have freedom of choice to enter.

• Fails to acknowledge the extent to which private properties will be affected and sets a precedent that may impact future legislation. The phrase "private property" is absent from this act, which seems to overlook the idea that restaurants, bars and workplaces are private businesses (often the home of licensees), and fails to acknowledge that private property rights are often more efficient than government control to reconcile smokers' and anti-smokers' preferences, given an opportunity or incentive to do so.

• The failure of non-smoking locals to support the “No Smoking” trial at the Railway Hotel in Douglas, even though this, then recently upgraded, public house is close to one of the largest supermarkets on the island suggested no immediate market support for such a draconian ban, and by inference, suggests an overall fall in sales if such a ban were to be implemented by statute. If feeling was so high why did locals not immediately adopt and demonstrate support for such a move?

• Demonstrates a high level of intolerance that many people on the island would not wish to see imposed on any significant minority group. Raises questions regarding the rights and remit of policy-makers versus individual freedoms. Fails to acknowledge the human rights of smokers, and that the majority of adult smokers are already aware of the health risks associated with smoking and are thus making an informed choice of lifestyle. Fails to acknowledge that all people die, but the majority of people would prefer to live for 50 years in a country with freedom of choice than for 100 years in a dictatorship (provided that such freedom of choice does not impact others adversely).

• ‘Information’ predominately consists of research by interest groups, anecdotal reports based on experience, opinion polls, individual viewpoints, with much of this anecdotal evidence used to illustrate and reinforce different points. There is no mention of the difference in findings between limited exposure to ETS and the long-term exposure risk of ETS to children if smokers are encouraged to smoke at home. There is little mention that the Isle of Man Government tobacco strategy uses information from ASH an anti-smoking charity. As Government is elected to represent the people, in fairness lobby groups from both sides should either have had no direct influence on this questionnaire, or have been given equal status, and respondents’ should have been given a fair presentation of views.

• As several people have apparently died from the effects of ETS, the Isle of Man Government should be able to name individuals (from public death records) that have died as a result of ETS on the island to back up this evidence with unarguable facts.

• On this ‘evidence’, why is the government refraining from banning tobacco completely?

• This proposed Act and the consultation document upon which it is based is a poor way to address an important topic, and represents a further step towards voter apathy and a boost to special interests groups usurping democracy, often using fears aided by the media, with little thought given to the consequences to the damage this will cause by ‘shifting’ the problem to other vulnerable groups in society.

[Albert Tatlock]

You can "blah blah blah" the serious issues away as much as you like, 'cause none of it changes the fact that this time next year, if you smoke next to me or anyone else down the pub, you'll be breaking the law - and that's just great

Yes sorry to bring in the serious issues - I know they do confuse things for some. To make life easier - perhaps we should all just stop thinking.

 

I guarantee they'll eventually get around to something you care about at some time - so glad to know you'll be so laid back about it when it happens.

[Tempus Fugit]

well if we are the last place to ban smoking, we can't be 'world leaders' and go on lecture tours and have delegations coming here to see how well we did it being a world authourity on the subject - missed out on that one chaps

 

{/cynic mode}

[Lost Login]

I am not ignoring I just disagree that it is a civil libity issue

 

I also have difficulty in accepting the contents of such a long thread as being fair and balanced when a cursory glance shows some very basic errors or lack of understanding. Ignoring the fact that the percentages are actually much smaller than you state i.e. they are 0.9% to 1.4% of the number of companies per your figures, the correct figure as at 31st December 2006 is 30,934, how many of those actually emply staff in the Isle of Man.

 

The large majority are what would have previoulsy been non resident or exempt companies as you are no doubt well aware and run by the various firms within the finance sector in the Isle of Man. Judging from your previous posts you are obvioulsy well aware of this so either you are not reading what you post or you are intending to submit deliberately misleading items. The consequence of which is that it does not give me a great deal of confidence in the rest of what you post.

 

I just wish posters would not do this as there may be some decent content in what is posted, however when it is easy to spot huge errors on items that I have knowledge off it does quickly make you doubt the rest of the contents. It seems therefore little point in going to the effort of posting

 

 

Overall, I see this an an attack on people's civil liberties, by taking away the rights of people to congregate in a place of their choice (a private club or a place - pub - officially designated) and clearly signed. IMO, this whole debate has much wider conertations which many people seem to be ignoring.

 

ii. A telephone call to the companies registry reveals that there are well over 30,000 companies registered on the Isle of Man, (other websites state 48,000 in 1998). Thus 430 company respondents represent only 9 to 14% of registered businesses.

[Speckled Frost]

The civil liberties argument is circular and, taken to it's natural conclusion, you have anarchism.

 

I could argue that a private club would be an ideal place to socialise because it is nearby and has a good ambience. However, I don't want to smell of smoke and breath in fumes so I am denied my right to go to this club in a clean environment.

 

Everywhere will suffer in the short term but I was listening to a Bingo owner who actually believe the ban will prove good for business.

Bingo halls have been hit hardest by the ban in the short term because so many of patrons smoke but this guy said so many potential customers are put off by the smokey atmosphere.

 

The business environment is always changing, pubs and clubs have to adapt like any other business.

They'll just have to weather the first couple of difficult years.

 

On the other hand, things like this will start happening without the mask of smoke.

 

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/story.php?story_id=411

[Albert Tatlock]

I am not ignoring I just disagree that it is a civil libity issue

 

I also have difficulty in accepting the contents of such a long thread as being fair and balanced when a cursory glance shows some very basic errors or lack of understanding. Ignoring the fact that the percentages are actually much smaller than you state i.e. they are 0.9% to 1.4% of the number of companies per your figures, the correct figure as at 31st December 2006 is 30,934, how many of those actually emply staff in the Isle of Man.

 

The large majority are what would have previoulsy been non resident or exempt companies as you are no doubt well aware and run by the various firms within the finance sector in the Isle of Man. Judging from your previous posts you are obvioulsy well aware of this so either you are not reading what you post or you are intending to submit deliberately misleading items. The consequence of which is that it does not give me a great deal of confidence in the rest of what you post.

 

I just wish posters would not do this as there may be some decent content in what is posted, however when it is easy to spot huge errors on items that I have knowledge off it does quickly make you doubt the rest of the contents. It seems therefore little point in going to the effort of posting

An error well spotted. That post was one of my first on MF over a year ago and based on the 2001 census - and a real telephone call to the registry. But what you are actually saying is that support for the ban is minute - a 9% typo versus should be 0.9% - with only a tenth of the minority actually supporting the ban.

 

I am using the same wording as was used in the original government analysis - that does not distinguish between companies either.

 

To dismiss all of the facts in that post, based on one typo - a typo which actually benefits those in favour of the ban - is a well known political debating tactic and a lazy and hasty generalisation.

[Albert Tatlock]

The civil liberties argument is circular and, taken to it's natural conclusion, you have anarchism.

 

I could argue that a private club would be an ideal place to socialise because it is nearby and has a good ambience. However, I don't want to smell of smoke and breath in fumes so I am denied my right to go to this club in a clean environment.

That is a completely false argument. After all we are talking about removing people's existing rights, whilst not allowing them to even congregate away in a designated business (which they themselves may even own) or a private club (the rules of which they decide) - to perform a perfectly legal activity away from those not willing to be near it.

 

You cannot get into some public libraries without a membership card, and it's up to you to go and get one - or not to go and get one. You are also free to roam the countryside, but if you have hay fever, you are equally free not to roam if you don't want to. You could equally say 'I pay my taxes and contribute to the defence budget so I should be allowed in any defence establishment'.

 

Whatever people might say, the fact is that people's civil liberties have been eroded, with no simple compromise from the government, business, or the anti-smoking fundamentalists. We all have the right to where and with whom we associate with. That free choice has been taken away from a third of the population.

 

The group ASH have a vision of 'a world free from the harm caused by tobacco'. Private homes will be the next target.

[manxbird]

I've been wondering if the smoking ban in the UK will have a negative or positive impact on the Isle of Man during the period July to March next year.

[%age]

Whatever people might say, the fact is that people's civil liberties have been eroded, with no simple compromise from the government, business, or the anti-smoking fundamentalists. We all have the right to where and with whom we associate with. That free choice has been taken away from a third of the population.

 

Smokers, or rather the power of nicotine, have brought this on themselves by their self-centred needs, particularly over the past 20-30 years.

 

Many of us remember a room in the public house designated as the 'Smoking Room'. The smoker soon realise that his addiction needs were far greater than polite rules in pubs and decided that everywhere was a smoking room. and if you don't like smoke then tough. For those of us who don't go back that far, the simple and well publicised rule of 'no smoking at the bar' very soon got the two fingers from the generic smoker.

 

Which was a pity really, because I am sure that if the rule had been adhered to (although I see that when it comes to smokers and their addiction, there simply are no rules) then the Isle of Man, would probably have made its own laws perhaps more liberal laws.

 

If only the smoker had shown a bit of consideration to others (an impossibility it seems) then we would doubtless not have to bring in these laws.