Jump to full article: BAT, 2006-03-03
Intro: Smoking restrictions are nothing new, but anti-tobacco activists are increasingly asking governments to go much further, even calling for total bans on lighting up in public places such as bars and restaurants. But there are good and workable ways to banish smoke but not smokers, so that people who smoke don’t have to suffer social exclusion.
We don’t think people should be free to smoke wherever they like and we know many people dislike the smell of tobacco smoke and find it annoying.
But we believe that total smoking bans are unnecessary and unfair, and many public opinion polls have shown them to be unpopular. It is perfectly possible to continue to strike a balance by accommodating non-smokers and smokers separately and providing proper ventilation to reduce involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).
Very few countries have adopted the total public place smoking bans that have been introduced in Ireland, Norway and New Zealand and a complete ban in 1999 in British Columbia in Canada, for example, was overturned by the courts in March 2000 on the basis that it was excessive. . . .
This is about indoor air quality – and good ventilation is already recognised as a sound way to address it. There is debate about ventilation. For example, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) accepts that ventilation can reduce ETS, but takes the view that because it can’t totally eliminate every trace, it can’t totally eliminate health risks. However, it’s clear that the full potential of ventilation in reducing ETS to acceptably low levels has not yet been fully illustrated.
We are working with independent bodies to show how ventilation can greatly reduce ETS and improve indoor air quality. For example, we are working with the Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA) to test the effectiveness of air change rates on gases and particulate matter in indoor air.
Jump to full article » |