Page 210 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Wood: The main issue is health.
MR STEVENSON: I think, as Mr Wood mentions, the main issue for the people who agree with the Bill is health. It is to do with passive smoking. The argument is that, if you go to a restaurant that allows smoking and you do not want to smoke, your health could be impaired. Other members have raised not only the question of passive smoking. Mr Moore mentioned active smoking. Though someone may decide to smoke and to inhale the smoke, it still is not a good thing to do as it ends up in a lot of costs for society in general. He said that a ban in many enclosed areas would discourage that practice. There is no doubt that it would. It would help reduce smoking. Those people who believe in market forces or in a situation where people are free to choose would say that the Bill discriminates. For a start, it discriminates against a legal practice, namely, smoking tobacco; and, interestingly, it does not discriminate against an illegal practice, namely, smoking marijuana, as Mr De Domenico mentioned.
The question has been asked: If the Government wants to do something about health problems and smoking, why do they not ban smoking in total, not just smoking in enclosed places? In addition, why are they banning smoking only in some public places and not in others? The argument was again put, I believe by Mr De Domenico, that if you wanted to start at the worst end of the passive smoking problem in enclosed public places you would go to where most of it occurs. But the statements by the Minister support the other viewpoint - that you start at the better end.
Those people who support a total ban would suggest that, even if it is not a matter of health in enclosed places, it is a matter of comfort. You may not feel that it is unhealthy, but you cannot sit there and enjoy a meal or enjoy a leisurely time if you have to breathe in someone else's smoke. Some say that a non-smoking environment also enhances your taste and smell, so you enjoy your meal better. Those people who support freedom of choice say that if you do not want to eat in a smoking area you should go to an establishment that does not allow smoking or that allows a choice.
This brings us to the question of ventilation. Some people support a ban. Some specialists have contacted me. One from Washington said that there is no practical way of ventilating a restaurant or an enclosed area. I think all of us would agree that there is technology available and that you could do it, but what we are talking about here is cost and whether or not it is practical. The suggestion is that there are so many dangerous chemicals and dangerous fumes within smoke that you simply could not get all of them out, even if you could get some out. Those people who support freedom of choice or who are against a total ban would disagree with that. They would say that there are many restaurants that have already spent large sums of money on adequate ventilation and that some have installed negative ion generators to handle some of the particulate matter in the air. The people who support the total ban say that there is no safe level of smoke at all.
Those people who are against the ban talk about costs. Mr De Domenico presented the case quite well. The Minister is saying that there will be no ban in the casino or that there will be no ban in areas where we know there is a great deal of smoking - clubs, hotels and so on; that from a practical viewpoint, people would really be happy with that at this time and any ban needs to be introduced
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .