Business

MPs stub out complete smoking ban

05.03.2010 08:02

The lower house of parliament (Sejm) has voted for a much more liberal amendment to a bill banning smoking in public places in Poland, allowing areas in pubs and clubs where smokers can light up a cigarette.

The vote in the Sejm yesterday evening - carried by 217 for, 165 against and 48 abstentions - came a shock to the parliamentary health committee which had recommended a total smoking ban in public. Under the new amendment, it will be possible in small restaurants and pubs for the owner to decide whether a smoking ban would be in place. In premises over 100 square meters a separate smoking area must be provided. If the premises with an area of over 100 meters has more than one room, the owner decides which of them is a smoking area. Smoking rooms would also available in schools, universities, hospitals, and workplaces.

The rules would not prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes.

Grzegorz Dolniak, the deputy head of the Civic Platform in the Sejm said after the vote that a complete ban would be a “dead law” and probably unenforceable. “It is necessary to preserve common sense and also give a chance to non-smokers who do not want to be exposed to passive smoking.” He also said a complete ban would hurt businesses.

Boleslaw Piecha from the opposition Law and Justice party and head of the parliamentary health committee said the amendment was ridiculous, as Poland’s current health laws have a total ban on smoking in hospitals, whereas under the proposed law smoking would be permitted.

The bill has now been sent to the Senate. (pg)

Source: IAR

Comments: 17 Add new comment

dunderhead

05/03/2010 09:07:42

This could be seen as a reasonable move by politicians. The total ban was brought in first in Ireland where it came under a health and safety bill for workers in bars and pubs under some dubious passive smoking evidence.

Since then it has been turned into a smoking witchhunt seeking to demonise smokers, which has resulted in many of those workers that the law wanted to protect being thrown out of work as pubs close in Ireland, Uk etc.

So putting an element of choice into the bill might save some jobs and put the responsibility of smoking back with the smokers. It’s their choice..

Skoy

05/03/2010 10:05:32

You think smokers care about the health of non-smokers then? They will still smoke wherever they can, and no owner will make his bar smoke-free out of fear of losing customers. Smokers are generally selfish and they think it's non-smokers that should adapt.

I'm still 100% for a full smoking ban.

harleyrider1978

05/03/2010 14:10:50

If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.

here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:

Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.

Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic

Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes

Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes

And so on. You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000 chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.

harleyrider1978

05/03/2010 14:11:16

Yes...the 1992/93 EPA report was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge's ruling doesn't stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.

Here's some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:

2006 Surgeon General's Report (excerpts)

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally.....

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh...

Peter

05/03/2010 14:11:47

The total ban in the UK and Ireland has been ruinous for the pub industry. This is a good decision. People will be able to choose to go to a smoke-free club or pub if they want to. Anyway, powerful extractor fans could enable smokers and their non-smoker friends to socialise together.

dunderhead

05/03/2010 14:36:09

harleyrider1978can you keep your posts a bit shorter...I gave up half way through, man...

harleyrider1978

05/03/2010 14:48:34

Its a good read unless your for taking away the rights of people based upon quack science.

charlene

05/03/2010 16:29:08

second hand smoke is just as deadly as smoking. Poland is behind the times (as usual) in not banning smoking inside any building regardless of the business.

Mark

05/03/2010 16:47:48

Charlene - did you not read harleyrider's (long) post? Or not understand it?

Kevin

05/03/2010 22:19:03

This is excellent news! This is pretty close to how it should be. Either it should be completely up to the owners of cafes, restaurants and pubs; or should non-smoking rooms should be mandatory, so too smoking rooms should be mandatory to ensure both groups’ rights are respected. The extortionate tax that smokers pay could easily cover grants to all such businesses to provide adequate ventilation for smoking rooms. Poland seems to be leading the way with sensible solutions – by the way, I live in Poland.

Published comments are the opinions of private individuals and do not reflect the views of Polskie Radio S.A. With regards to this, Polskie Radio S.A. does not accept any liability for any content published. Any comments containing vulgar language will be deleted in accordance with Polish law.

News from Poland

Business

MPs stub out complete smoking ban

MOST POPULAR