Liberty and law - smoking banned within 15m of hospital buildings in Scotland
I shall be in Scotland this week. More on that later.
Meanwhile a new law comes into force today. As reported here, ‘Anyone found to be smoking within 15 metres of a hospital building [in Scotland] could face an on the spot fine of £50 or a fine of up to £1000 if the case is taken to court.’
It could have been worse. The Scottish Government could have gone for a comprehensive ban but chose instead to impose a ‘smoke free’ zone around hospital buildings.
Either way it’s still a ban and yet another example of creeping prohibition. I just hope NHS managers will show some common sense, not to mention compassion, when enforcing the new law. A quiet word, for example, rather than a potentially distressing on the spot fine.
Talking of which, it’s not clear to me who will enforce the new law, or how. I can’t imagine the police will want to be involved so will hospitals be expected to employ wardens for that specific purpose or will existing staff be given the job of handing out fines?
The hardest hit will of course be those with mobility issues but, as I say, at least it’s not a complete ban.
The question is, if smoking is only prohibited by law within 15 metres of hospital buildings, will hospitals now remove those signs that declare ‘This is a smoke free site’?
My guess is no, they won’t. I imagine they will stay in place as a form of deterrent, discouraging smokers from lighting up even where it’s legal to do so.
I should add that the ban has been a long time coming - seven years, in fact, because that’s how long it is since Forest submitted its response to the consultation on the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill, following which I was invited to give oral evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee.
See ‘Consequences of banning smoking in hospital grounds’ (August 6, 2015) and ‘Reporting Scotland: hospital smoking bans under attack’ (September 1, 2015).
I don’t remember anyone other than Forest arguing against a complete ban on smoking on hospital grounds so the new law, whilst regrettable, could be considered a compromise - even a victory, of sorts.
After all, while others were demanding a complete ban (or saying nothing) this is what we wrote in our submission:
By all means restrict smoking in the area around entrances to hospitals, but making it an offence to smoke on the entire site is unreasonable and excessive. It is the firmly held opinion of Forest that banning smoking on the entire site of any NHS hospital is inhumane and demonstrates a staggering lack of empathy for patients, staff and visitors who take pleasure from smoking or find it a comfort in stressful times.
Did it make a difference? You be the judge but I like to think it did.
See also: Hospital smoking ban plan ‘petty’, Holyrood committee told (BBC News, September 1, 2015)
Update: The Dundee Courier has our response here:
Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ lobby group Forest, [said] the new law is “disappointing”.
“It discriminates against patients with mobility issues who may find it difficult to walk the extra yards to enjoy a comforting cigarette.
“Surely the NHS has bigger and more urgent problems to address than someone smoking a cigarette in the open air outside a hospital building?
“Given there is no evidence that smoking in the open air is a significant health risk to non-smokers the new law seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”
Reader Comments (3)
Thanks Simon. As you say, it could have been worse.
I think the anti smoker bullies will blur the line and make smokers think it is illegal to smoke on the whole grounds. They will use this law as an excuse to harass people who smoke to be abusive or bullying because they think they have some God given right to treat smokers in an inhumane way.
Most compassionate and normal people will walk on by and say nothing recognising that everyone has a right to be on hospital grounds including people who might need a smoke to deal with whatever stress they face at hospital which is a place they don't choose to be.
The measure of a country's tolerance and compassion can be seen in how it treats its most vulnerable and for sure the UK shows that some of the most vulnerable are just easy targets to bully and exclude. It would be so easy to include smokers and treat them with compassion with an enclosed and ventilated shelter near entrances but that goes against the ideological and political utopia of a future world with no smokers in it and one where freedom is a dirty word and means only being free to be told what you can do.
Doesn’t the EU laws adopted by Teresa May state that smoking outside is perfectly legal?
LFB, the revised Tobacco Products Directive introduced new regulations concerning tobacco products (eg ban on 10-packs, ban on menthol cigarettes, larger health warnings on cigarette packs etc). It did not regulate on where smoking is allowed or not allowed. To date those decisions have been left to individual member states. In general, laws have been introduced to restrict or prohibit smoking, not permit smoking, although laws that prohibit smoking may include exemptions.