IT is now ten years since the ban on smoking in certain public places was introduced in Scotland and there is no doubt it has been a success. There are some who link the ban with pub closures, but the health benefits are obvious. Fewer of us are exposed to second-hand smoke, and all of us can now enjoy a night out at the pub without breathing in other people’s smoke.
But does the ban go far enough? From today, it will be illegal to smoke in a car if there are children present and, while some activists think that is a patronising move, the logic is impeccable. Not only does the enclosed atmosphere of a car mean levels of second-hand smoke build up more quickly than they would elsewhere, children breathe faster than adults and therefore ingest more of the toxins. The moral principle of the ban is also sound: why should children be exposed to smoke when they have no choice?
As for going further and banning smoking in cars at all times, as some campaigners would like, caution is needed. Dr Peter Bennie, the chair of BMA Scotland, says a complete ban would protect adults, particularly vulnerable ones, and would be easier to enforce than the partial ban coming into force today. But where would such a ban take us next? A ban in outdoor places such as parks and gardens? Or even in private homes?
There are some who would support such a move, but while smoking remains a legal activity (and a vice that raises millions in tax) the right of citizens to indulge has to be carefully balanced against the rights of others to be protected.
A ban in public spaces on its own can also never really tackle the fundamental problem with smoking, which is one of addiction, so before we chase smokers out of every public, and private, space, we need to offer them more help to give up or move to safer alternatives such as e-cigarettes as a stepping stone to quitting. The ban on smoking around children in cars is a welcome move, but smokers need help as well as punishment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel