Smoking in public places

Negotiation Portfolio

27.05.2015
Created by: Catalin Pop, Neata Adnana, Alexoaie Radu, Criste Marius Ovidiu, Mafteiu Alexandru,
Gonczi Zsuzsa

Smoking in public places

Negotiation Portfolio

1. Curent Romanian law regarding smoking in public

places.

Lege nr. 349 din 06/06/2002

Publicat in Monitorul Oficial, Partea I nr. 435 din 21/06/2002
pentru prevenirea si combaterea efectelor consumului produselor din tutun
Parlamentul Romniei adopt prezenta lege.

Art. 1. - Prezenta lege stabilete unele msuri privind prevenirea i combaterea consumului
produselor din tutun, prin restrngerea fumatului n spaiile publice nchise, prin
inscripionarea pachetelor cu produse din tutun, prin desfurarea de campanii de informare i
educare a populaiei, avnd ca scop protejarea sntii persoanelor fumtoare i nefumtoare
de efectele duntoare ale fumatului.
Art. 2. - n sensul prezentei legi, prin:

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

a) produse din tutun se nelege produsele fabricate din tutun, total sau parial, n scopul
fumatului, i anume: igaretele, igrile i igrile de foi, tutunul destinat preparrii manuale a
igrilor, tutunul de pip, precum i tutunul destinat prizatului, suptului sau mestecatului;

b) produse din tutun de uz oral se nelege produsele fabricate n totalitate sau parial din
tutun, cu excepia celor care se fumeaz sau se mestec, sub forme speciale sau pudr, sau
orice alt combinaie a acestora, n mod particular cele prezentate n pliculee porionate sau
poroase, precum i cele avnd orice form care amintete de un produs alimentar;
c) tutun de mestecat se nelege tutunul prelucrat, tiat sau mrunit, destinat consumului
prin mestecare;
d) tutun de prizat se nelege produsul de tutun prelucrat, mcinat pn la stadiul de pulbere
fin, destinat consumului prin prizare;
e) fumat se nelege inhalarea voluntar a fumului rezultat n urma arderii tutunului coninut
n igri, igarete, igri de foi, cigarillos i pipe;

f) igarete se nelege produsele din tutun ce conin tutun prelucrat, tutun tiat, nvelit ntr-un
sul longitudinal de hrtie, cu seciune rotund sau oval, care conine tutun prelucrat, dispus
ntr-un mod adecvat pentru a fi fumate n mod direct;
g) trabucuri - termen generic pentru igrile de foi;
h) igri de foi se nelege produsele din tutun obinute prin nvelirea tutunului de umplutur
(tiat sau mrunit) n una sau mai multe foi de tutun prelucrat;
i) cigarillos se nelege igaretele la care hrtia de confecionat este nlocuit cu foi de tutun
sau tutun reconstituit;
j) gudron se nelege condensatul anhidru de fum fr nicotin;
k) nicotin se nelege alcaloida nicotinic;
l) ingredient se nelege orice substan sau orice constituent, cu excepia frunzelor de tutun
i a altor pri naturale sau neprelucrate din tutun, folosit la prepararea sau producerea
produselor din tutun i care se regsete n produsul finit, chiar dac apare n alte forme
incluznd hrtie, filtru, cerneal i adezivi;
m) spaii publice nchise se nelege toate spaiile din instituiile publice centrale i locale,
instituii sau uniti economice, de alimentaie public, de turism, comerciale, de nvmnt,
medico-sanitare, culturale, de educaie, sportive, toate mijloacele de transport n comun,
autogri, gri i aeroporturi, de stat i private, spaiile nchise de la locul de munc sau alte
spaii prevzute de lege, cu excepia spaiilor delimitate i special amenajate pentru fumat din
incinta acestora.
Art. 3. - (1) Se interzice fumatul n spaiile publice nchise.
(2) Fumatul este permis n spaii special amenajate pentru fumat, cu respectarea
urmtoarelor condiii obligatorii:
a) s fie construite astfel nct s deserveasc doar fumatul i s nu permit ptrunderea
aerului viciat n spaiile publice nchise;

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

b) s fie ventilate corespunztor, astfel nct nivelul noxelor s fie sub nivelurile maxime
admise.

(3) De la prevederile alin. (1) fac excepie barurile, restaurantele, discotecile i alte spaii
publice cu destinaie similar, dac ndeplinesc condiiile alin. (2) lit. b).
(4) Prevederile alin. (2) nu se aplic barurilor, restaurantelor, discotecilor i altor spaii
publice cu destinaie similar, al cror proprietar sau manager stabilete i afieaz
avertismentul: "n aceast unitate fumatul este interzis."
(5) Se interzice vnzarea produselor din tutun la bucat, precum i punerea pe pia a
pachetelor de igri care conin mai puin de 20 de buci.
(6) Unitile care comercializeaz sau dein automate pentru vnzarea produselor din tutun
sunt obligate:

a) s afieze la loc vizibil interzicerea vnzrii produselor din tutun tinerilor sub 18 ani;
b) s afieze cuantumul amenzii aplicate pentru nerespectarea prevederilor lit. a).
(7) n autorizaia sanitar de funcionare a unitilor care comercializeaz produse din tutun
se introduce o clauz special de interzicere a vnzrii produselor din tutun tinerilor sub 18
ani.
(8) Sunt interzise producia i importul destinate pieei interne, precum i punerea pe pia a
oricrui produs care nu poart inscripionat coninutul de gudron, de nicotin i monoxid de
carbon din gazele msurate.
(9) Sunt interzise producia i importul destinate pieei interne, precum i punerea pe pia a
oricrui produs care nu poart inscripionat avertismentul general i cel adiional privind
pericolul consumrii acestuia asupra sntii individuale i publice.
(10) Este interzis punerea pe pia a oricror produse din tutun de uz oral.
Art. 4. - (1) Publicitatea pentru produsele din tutun este permis n conformitate cu legislaia
n vigoare.
(2) Folosirea unei embleme sau a denumirii unei mrci de tutun pentru promovarea altor
produse este interzis.
Art. 5. - Proprietarii sau managerii care administreaz spaiile publice n care este interzis
fumatul au obligaia de a afia la loc vizibil simboluri care interzic fumatul.
Art. 6. - (1) Fiecare pachet care conine produse din tutun, n momentul punerii pe pia a
produsului, trebuie s prezinte tiprit pe o parte a pachetului, n limba romn, coninutul de
gudron, de nicotin i monoxid de carbon din gazele msurate, n conformitate cu prevederile
legale n vigoare, astfel nct s se acopere cel puin 10% din suprafaa corespunztoare.
(2) Fiecare pachet care conine produse din tutun, cu excepia tutunului de uz oral sau a altor
produse din tutun care nu se fumeaz, se inscripioneaz, n limba romn, cu un avertisment
general, precum i cu unul adiional, dup cum urmeaz:

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

a) avertismentul general se tiprete alternativ, prin rotaie, la intervale egale de timp,

folosindu-se unul dintre cele dou texte, precum: "Fumatul ucide/Fumatul poate ucide" i
"Fumatul este nociv pentru sntatea dumneavoastr i pentru cei din jurul dumneavoastr";

b) avertismentul general se tiprete pe cea mai vizibil suprafa a pachetului, precum i n

oricare loc pe ambalajul exterior al pachetului, cu excepia celui transparent, folosit n
vnzarea cu amnuntul a produsului;
c) avertismentul general acoper cel puin 30% din suprafaa vizibil a pachetului;
d) avertismentul adiional se tiprete alternativ, prin rotaie, la intervale egale de timp,
folosindu-se unul dintre textele prevzute n lista cuprins n anexa care face parte integrant
din prezenta lege;

e) avertismentul adiional se tiprete pe cealalt suprafa vizibil a pachetului, precum i

n oricare loc pe ambalajul exterior al pachetului, cu excepia celui transparent, folosit n
vnzarea cu amnuntul a produsului;
f) avertismentul adiional acoper cel puin 40% din suprafaa vizibil a pachetului pe care
este tiprit;
g) Ministerul Sntii i Familiei va stabili, prin ordin al ministrului, reglementri
referitoare la poziionarea avertismentelor pe aceste suprafee, precum i la utilizarea
imaginilor fotografice sau a desenelor care ilustreaz consecinele fumatului asupra sntii;
h) pentru pachetele cu produse din tutun, altele dect igrile, la care cea mai vizibil
suprafa depete 75 cm2, avertismentele prevzute de prezenta lege acoper o arie de 22,5
cm2 pe fiecare suprafa.
(3) Textul avertismentului general, al celui adiional, precum i coninutul de gudron, de
nicotin i monoxid de carbon este:
a) tiprit cu font negru ngroat, tipul Helvetica, pe fond alb; dimensiunea fontului va ocupa
cea mai mare proporie posibil din aria tiprit;
b) tiprit cu minuscule, cu excepia primei litere a mesajului;
c) tiprit centrat, paralel cu imaginea de sus a pachetului;
d) textul avertismentelor este ncadrat cu un chenar negru, lat de minimum 3 mm i
maximum 4 mm, care nu interfereaz cu textul avertismentului sau cu informaia prezentat n
limba romn.
(4) Se interzice tiprirea textului avertismentelor pe timbru.
(5) Textul se tiprete astfel nct s nu poat fi mutat, ters sau ascuns, neclar ori ntrerupt
de alte texte sau desene ori n momentul deschiderii pachetului.

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

(6) Pentru a se asigura identificarea produsului, produsele din tutun vor fi marcate n mod
corespunztor, la numerotarea lotului, pe pachetele cu produse din tutun, fcnd posibil
determinarea locului i a momentului producerii acestora.

(7) Sunt interzise producia i importul destinate pieei interne, precum i punerea pe pia a
oricrui produs care poart inscripionat orice text sau imagine care sugereaz c un produs
din tutun este mai puin duntor dect altul.
Art. 7. - (1) Agenii economici care produc i import pentru piaa intern, precum i cei
care comercializeaz produse din tutun iau msurile necesare aplicrii prevederilor art. 3 alin.
(5), (8)-(10) i ale art. 6.
(2) Aciunile de inspecie sanitar de stat vor cuprinde n mod obligatoriu i controlul
respectrii prevederilor prezentei legi.

Art. 8. - Ministerul Educaiei i Cercetrii, Ministerul Sntii i Familiei i Ministerul

Tineretului i Sportului elaboreaz i pun n aplicare programe naionale de educaie, inclusiv
prin mass-media, privind prevenirea i combaterea consumului produselor din tutun.
Art. 9. - Posturile de radio i de televiziune naionale pun la dispoziie Ministerului
Educaiei i Cercetrii, Ministerului Sntii i Familiei i Ministerului Tineretului i
Sportului un spaiu de emisie de minimum 30 de minute sptmnal, din care 50% la ore de
maxim audien, pentru difuzarea de materiale promoionale de prevenire i combatere a
consumului produselor din tutun.
Art. 10. - Constituie contravenii, dac nu au fost svrite n astfel de condiii nct, potrivit
legii penale, s fie considerate infraciuni, urmtoarele fapte:
a) nerespectarea prevederilor art. 3 alin. (1) i se sancioneaz cu amend contravenional
de la 1.000.000 lei la 5.000.000 lei sau cu efectuarea a 20 de ore de munc n folosul
comunitii, n cazul elevilor sau studenilor contravenieni, n condiiile legii;
b) nerespectarea prevederilor art. 3 alin. (5) i ale art. 4 alin. (2) i se sancioneaz cu
amend contravenional de la 25.000.000 lei la 50.000.000 lei;
c) nerespectarea prevederilor art. 3 alin. (3), (4) i (6) i se sancioneaz cu amend
contravenional de la 10.000.000 lei la 50.000.000 lei;
d) nerespectarea prevederilor art. 3 alin. (8), (9) i (10) i ale art. 6 i se sancioneaz cu
amend contravenional de la 25.000.000 lei la 40.000.000 lei.
Art. 11. - Sanciunile prevzute la art. 10 lit. b) i d) se aplic i persoanelor juridice.
Art. 12. - (1) Nerespectarea repetat a prevederilor art. 6 se sancioneaz cu retragerea de pe
pia a produsului n cauz de ctre organismele competente.
(2) Nerespectarea repetat a prevederilor art. 3 alin. (3) i (4) i ale art. 5 se sancioneaz cu
suspendarea temporar a activitii de ctre organismele competente.

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

Art. 13. - (1) Constatarea contraveniilor i aplicarea sanciunilor prevzute la art. 7 se fac
de ctre direciile de sntate public judeene i a municipiului Bucureti, precum i de ctre
direciile de sntate public regionale n transporturi, prin Inspecia Sanitar de Stat, i de
ctre reprezentani ai Autoritii Naionale pentru Protecia Consumatorilor.

(2) mpotriva procesului-verbal de constatare a contraveniei se poate face contestaie n

termen de 15 zile de la data comunicrii acestuia.
(3) Contestaia, nsoit de copia de pe procesul-verbal de constatare a contraveniei, se
depune la judectoria n a crei raz teritorial a fost svrit contravenia, spre soluionare,
n termen de 15 zile de la data primirii.
Art. 14. - Prevederile prezentei legi se completeaz cu cele ale Ordonanei Guvernului nr.
2/2001 privind regimul general al contraveniilor, cu modificrile i completrile ulterioare.

Art. 15. - Prezenta lege intr n vigoare n termen de 6 luni de la data publicrii n Monitorul
Oficial al Romniei, Partea I, cu excepia prevederilor art. 3 alin. (8) i (9) i ale art. 6, care
intr n vigoare la data de 31 decembrie 2004.

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

Aceast lege a fost adoptat de Senat n edina din 16 mai 2002, cu respectarea
prevederilor art. 74 alin. (2) din Constituia Romniei.

1. Factual and statistical data regarding smoking in

Romania and other European countries
Definition of public places:

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to
which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by
payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for
a private gathering or other personal purpose1.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

Based on the statistics above we were able to ascertain that the current Romanian law regarding
smoking in public places is vague and widely unknown among both smokers and non-smokers.
We could see that more than half of the smokers and 75% of the non-smokers consider
necessary the implementation of a law regarding the prevention of smoking.

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

According to the statistics most of the people smoke at home.

10

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

2.5.1 Adult population smoking daily, 2010 and change in smoking rates, 2000-2010 (or nearest year)
2010 (or nearest year)

14.0

Sweden
Luxembourg
Portugal
Slovenia
Finland
Malta
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Belgium
Romania
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Germany
EU-27
Italy
Austria
France
Poland
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Estonia
Spain
Hungary
Lithuania
Latvia
Ireland
Bulgaria
Greece

14.3

Iceland
Norway
Switzerland

18.0
18.6
18.9
19.0
19.2
19.5
20.0
20.5
20.5
20.9
21.5
21.9
23.0
23.1
23.2
23.3
23.8
24.6
25.9
26.2
26.2
26.5
26.5
27.9
29.0
29.2
31.9

19.0
20.4
25.4

40

30

Turkey

20

10

% of population aged 15 years and over

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

Source: OECD Health Data 2012; Eurostat Statistics Database; WHO Global Infobase.

11

1. Negotiation strategy
1.1 Establish the goal

I.Climate
II. Negotiation opening
III. Negotiation

I.Climate
There is no established informal meeting, but there will be a couple of minutes in front of the
building where we will meet before the session starts, where an relaxed, friendly, cooperative
environment will be created. There will be caution conversations not to touch the
NEGOTIATION topic.

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

II. Negotiation opening

12

The main approach developed regarding the negotiation process is to remain focused on
the subject. The topic of discussions is a delicate and sensitive one, resulting that the risk of
misleading topics and interventions to appear. It is important to focus on the topic and to sustain
the offer in the best manner possible. Given the fact that the first step would be a preliminary
meeting to get to know each other and to know the personalities beforehand, we decided to
settle a calm, confident and friendly environment before the negotiation without mentioning the
topic, avoiding in this way the danger of exposing important information in advance.
The goal of the discussion is to reach a common agreement suitable for all of us and the
people that we represent, showing our desire and eagerness to cooperate, but based on well
documented arguments and settled rules. Our goal is to maintain as many prerogatives from our
draft in the final written agreement as possible. With this respect we emphasize the importance
of cooperation and mutual agreement. As we all know the topic of this meeting is Smoking in
public spaces and as mentioned before, we will try to avoid deviations from the subject. The
process will continue by turns and each party needs to speak in the moment in which it is
supposed to do that. At the beginning the presentation of the offer is important due to the
emphasis that will be put on the important improvements that we want to bring to the current
legislation in Romania.
The rules of the negotiation are presented as a common agreement and the other party
is asked to accept or to refuse the rules. We consider that 45 minutes is a reasonable time frame
in which both parties to be able to properly illustrate their offer and to sustain their offer later
on. Each time has the right to use 4 speakers and 4 time outs. In what regards our team, we
decided to have only one speaker and the possibility for backup, but only if it is necessary. The
speaker will be Alex Mafteiu which has priority to time-outs and these time-outs will be used
cautiously by other members of the team. At least one timeout is used in order to confuse them
and to change their attention from their arguments towards our arguments. Also, we want to
emphasize how much we appreciate respect and understanding as fundamental factors in the

negotiation process and that we kindly ask the other team that both parties to engage in speaking
in turns.
In what follows Alex Mafteiu, our speaker will present the team. Alexoae RaduSpecialist is Public order, Criste Ovidiu- Specialist in Law, Gonczi Zsuzsa- Specialist in
Communication, Mafteiu Alexandru- Specialist in economics, Neata Adnana- Specialist in
Political science and Pop Catalin- Specialist in Law. If you have any questions for our team of
specialists please feel free to ask. It is professional to present the team as a group of experts and
in this way to win respect and confidence from the other side.
I want to thank everyone for being here at this negotiation table. As we all know we are
here to reach an agreement regarding smoking in public places. According to the Romanian
constitution any natural person has the right to dispose of himself unless by this, he infringes
on the rights & freedoms of others on public domain or morals.
During this negotiation we will bring solutions and together we will find the most
suitable alternatives based on thorough analysis of well documented data.
At the end we are convinced that we will be fully satisfied with the signed agreement.
III. Negotiation
1. Exploration
Position:

We support that the complete banishment of the public smoking is not required, rather
the enforcement and the improvement of the present law is the most sustainable
solution in regards to a problem that affects every one of us.
The creation/the assignation of a special department in the Institution that deals w/ the
mentioned law.
more severe sanctions sanctions should be applied in case of infringement of the law

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

2. Offer presentation

13

The changes that we propose to be done to the current law are mainly related to the 3 rd
article paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and to the sanctions imposed by the current law. These additional
prerogatives will make the law easier to follow, more complete and straight forward. We will
work only with these particular parts of the current legislation because this is the focus of our
discussions.
In what regards the public places that should apply the regulations of the state, each bar
restaurant, working place, spaces designated for the public will have separate spaces for
smokers and non-smokers. Also, in order to accordingly respect this demands at least monthly
unannounced controls will be made by an organized committee in charge of the wellfunctioning of this law.
The current sanctions for not being in accordance with law are not high enough this being
the reason for which we consider that higher sanctions should be imposed. Higher fees regulated

based on the severity imposed by each context. A clear set of rules, a clear set of sanctions and
a well-established committee.

Summary:
-

Imposed segregation of the spaces for smokers and non-smokers

Clear rules and regulations
Higher sanctions
Monthly controls made by a specialized committee

3. Negotiation of offers
We try to maximize our gains

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

Due to the fact that professionalism is a strong point in the position of our team, we will
highly recommend that:
A. If the opponent team will have a written offer we will discuss punctually each line
of the written offer
B. If the opponent team has no written agreement we will propose (strongly) that our
written offer should be negotiated point to point.
All the negotiation of offers will be constantly supported by visual tech -> statistical
data will be displayed when are in the advantage of the speaker's argument and also when a
counter argument if needed.
In the final agreement that we will establish alongside the opponent party we will impose
as many of our incipit proposals as we will negotiate in our favor.

14

Keen attention to the following details:

if the topic will be deviated (as we anticipate, due to previous encounters w/ the
opposing team) we will use a slight attention distraction supported by the team: a note
will be handed to the speaker in the moment that the deviation reached a level that is
considered useless
the speaker will pay a keen attention to the restoration of the subject on its natural
track
an active listening will be present throughout the negotiation session, regardless of the
opposing teams position or speaker
a team support will be constantly present without any body-language that shows
disagreement with the speaker
a strong professionalism body language and dress-code will have dedicated awareness
4. The establishment of the written agreement
We will constantly summarize decisions taken together and one member of our team will
take notes of the points established together w/ the purpose of writing or improve our written
offer.

In approach to the closing time of the negotiation session, one member will print the
decided agreement that will be revised with the opposing team before a complete signing and
the deal-closing.
After the printing of the final treaty, a time-out will be required by our team (if not
intended or anticipated that the other team will do the same) for the purpose of ratification and
veto-analysis by our team.
This is a negotiation session that is presumed to end w/ a written and signed treaty by
both parties involved. No future sessions will be required.

ARGUMENTS/ COUNTER-ARGUMENTS

A dozen reasons to stub out the smoking ban

1. The smoking ban disregards property rights. The air in a pub belongs neither to
smokers nor non-smokers, and certainly not to politicians, but to the publican. It is the
publican who should decide the smoking policy on his or her own premises.
2. The smoking ban is bad for business. Despite ever more contrived efforts to prove
otherwise, pubs and clubs are dying, in part, because of the business lost as smokers find
somewhere else to drink where they can smoke in peace. The ban may not be the only factor
in the decline of pubs and clubs, but only the most blinkered smoke-hater would deny that
it is a significant one.
3. 3. The smoking ban removes freedom of choice. Not only are smokers denied the freedom
to choose a place where we can enjoy a legal habit, but everyone is denied the freedom to
work out their own compromises and solutions so that both smokers and non-smokers get

VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

what they want. (

15

2. The smoking ban sets a terrible precedent by blurring the boundary between
public and private. A public place should be defined as somewhere that (a) you have
no choice but to enter, and/or (b) is financed by your taxes. Civic offices, libraries and
law courts are public places; pubs, clubs and restaurants are not. Politicians and
doctors should have no right to dictate what people do in such private spaces. If we
concede to them that right, they will inevitably extend it to other behaviors and other
places, for example to our cars (as they are now trying to do) and then to our homes
(which has already happened in parts of the US and, in specific situations, in the UK,
too).
3. The smoking ban removes freedom of choice. Not only are smokers denied the freedom to
choose a place where we can enjoy a legal habit, but everyone is denied the freedom to work
out their own compromises and solutions so that both smokers and non-smokers get what they
want.

4. The smoking ban is undemocratic. Prior to the passing of this legislation, the UK Office
for National Statistics found 68 per cent of people were opposed to a total ban. Moreover,
Labour promised in its General Election manifesto in 2005 to ban smoking only in places
serving food. But a total ban was imposed regardless. The only opinions lawmakers have
listened to are those of medical authorities, lobby groups and - directly or indirectly - the
pharmaceutical companies that frequently fund those organizations.
5. The smoking ban is socially divisive and encourages intolerance. Government is blatantly
stigmatizing a particular group, who must change its behavior or be excluded from correct
society (a recent National Health Service campaign used the slogan If you smoke, you stink).
Well-intentioned or not, anti-smoking authorities have created tremendous animosity between
friends, neighbors and family members. The authorities have also encouraged people to think
that government can, or should, intervene to stop one group of people doing whatever another
group doesnt approve of.
6. The smoking ban is hypocritical. Tobacco remains legal and the Treasury makes around
10 billion per year from taxing it. And, incidentally, there is a smoker-friendly bar in the House
of Commons.
8. The smoking ban is technologically backward. It is not difficult, with decent modern air
filtration technology, to make smoke virtually unnoticeable, and certainly harmless.
9. The smoking ban does not stop people smoking. Even if it were appropriate to ban smoking
in pubs in order to pressure people into quitting which, as an attack on personal choice, it is
not the ban doesnt have the desired effect. In many places (including the countries with the
longest-standing bans in Europe, Ireland and Italy) smoking rates have risen since bans have
been imposed. Anti-smoking zealots refuse to recognize that they have already reduced smokers
to a hard core who will not quit, and their increasingly bullying tactics are actually backfiring.
Even if tobacco were made completely illegal, millions would continue to use it.

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

10. The smoking ban turns hospitality industry employees into law enforcers. Enforcing
the law is the job of the police, not bar staff, waiters, publicans or restaurant managers. This
sets another bad precedent, especially when members of the public are also encouraged to report
violations of the ban. These are the methods of the Gestapo or the Stasi, who maintained control
by making ordinary citizens fear each other.

16

11. The smoking ban does not get rid of smokers, but merely displaces us. Smokers have
been forced to go to the only places we can smoke: the streets and the home. In the first case,
its pretty hard for us not to become more visible, and to create some degree of obstruction,
noise or mess; and in the second, we are, according to anti-smokers, poisoning our family
members or at least, setting a bad example. The result of all this is that, perversely, the
smoking ban gives non-smokers less choice over where and when they confront smoking.
12. The smoking ban is built on an illusory health threat. This is perhaps the most important
reason of all, because the question of health is used by the government to override all other
considerations. In this case, the deadly health threat is secondhand smoke. But there is no
actual proof that even one person has died from this phantom menace. After 40 years of studies,
anti-smokers can still only produce computer projections based on dubious statistics, and
relative risk ratios which sound scary but mean nothing in the real world. Thats why we see,

for instance, posters telling us that tobacco smoke contains various nasty-sounding chemicals,
without mentioning that these substances are present only at infinitesimal, harmless levels.
If we accept that such feeble evidence justifies a smoking ban, we are setting the level of
acceptable risk so low as to justify banning just about everything else, too: cooking (which
produces carcinogens), candles, incense, open fires, perfume, etc. Thousands of products, from
household cleaners to cosmetics, contain higher levels of toxic chemicals than tobacco and
all those everyday products are harmless, too.
It is also absurd to forbid adults from choosing to accept the risk of working in a smoking
venue when they are free, for instance, to work down mines, on oil rigs, fighting fires, and so
on.
Ultimately, the problem here goes way beyond to smoke or not to smoke. There is a worrying
general trend towards more and more intrusive legislation, justified by more and more dishonest
and misleading junk science and fear mongering. Typical of this are recent claims that the
continuation of a long-term decline in heart attacks is caused by smoking bans, and the
invention of a new threat, third hand, on the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever.
What is needed is not just the repeal of the smoking ban and other illiberal laws, but a return to
healthy skepticism about the claims made about various risks, fairness and tolerance towards
others with different habits, and a large dose of common sense.

Why Defend Smokers?

Everywhere you look, anti-smoking groups are campaigning against smokers. They claim
smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; that secondhand smoke is a major public
health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society; and that for all
these reasons, taxes on cigarettes should be raised.

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say.
They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of
higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places. The anti-smoking movement is hardly a
grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with
left-liberal agendas.

17

A growing number of independent policy experts from a wide range of professions and
differing political views are speaking out against the anti-smoking campaign. These persons
arent defending the tobacco industry, they defend smokers for several reasons:

Smokers already pay taxes that are too high to be fair, and far above any cost they impose on
the rest of society.
The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is
based on junk science.
Litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has loaded the
gun for lawsuits against other industries.
Smoking bans hurt small businesses and violate private property rights.

The harm caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about safer options such
as electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
Appeals to protect the children dont justify the war being waged against adult smokers.
Punishing smokers for their own good is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that
ought to limit the use of government force.

The rest of this essay provides facts and analysis in support of each of these arguments. It
ends with advice on how to get more involved in the tobacco control debate.
Second-hand Smoke
Is second-hand smoke a rationale for higher taxes on tobacco or smoking bans? The research
used to justify government regulation of second-hand smoke has been powerfully challenged
by critics, including Congresss own research bureau. According to the EPA, the risk ratio
for forty years of exposure to a pack-a-day smoker is just 1.19. Epidemiologists as a rule are
skeptical of any relative risks lower than 3 and dismiss as random ratios less than 1.3.
An important report on second-smoke appeared in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British
Medical Journal. Two epidemiologists, James Enstrom at UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat at the
State University of New York at Stony Brook, analyzed data collected by the American
Cancer Society from more than 100,000 Californians from 1959 through 1997.
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and
tobacco related mortality, the researchers wrote, although they do not rule out a small effect.
The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be
considerably weaker than generally believed.
It is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly
equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day, according to Enstrom and Kabat. If so, a small
increase in lung cancer is possible, but the commonly reported 30 percent increase in heart
disease risk--the purported cause of almost all the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke -- is
highly implausible.
Smoking Bans

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

Unjustified concern over the health effects of second-hand smoke have led to calls for bans
on smoking in public spaces. Are these bans justified?

18

Most seats in most restaurants are already designated nonsmoking, and there is little evidence
that nonsmokers who visit restaurants and bars believe smoking is a major concern. In
restaurants with smoking and nonsmoking sections, better ventilation systems rather than
smoking bans can solve any remaining concerns.
Smoking bans have had severe negative effects on restaurants, bars, and nightclubs in
cities where such bans have been enacted. Smokers choose to stay home or visit with
friends who allow smoking in their homes, or spend less time (and less money) in bars
and nightclubs before leaving. Smoking bans can also move noisy and potentially
dangerous crowds onto sidewalks, and divert police resources from battling more

serious crime, Te folosesti de faptul ca Radu e politest si le dai sansa sa il intrebe daca nu
cred ce sustinem noi.
Smoking bans violate the private property rights of individuals. The owners of bars,
restaurants, and other businesses should be free to decide whether to allow smoking in their
establishments and what kinds of accommodations to make for nonsmokers. Their customers
should decide how important it is to be able to smoke or to experience a smoke-free
environment.
Smokers Rights

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

If we pass laws forcing smokers to change their behavior for their own good, we need
to ask: Where do we stop? Do we pass laws against smoking in private homes? Against
frying food indoors (which also releases known carcinogens into the air)? Eating the
wrong kinds of food? Eating too much? Weighing too much? Drinking too much (and
not just when driving)? Exercising too little? Should we ban other risky behavior, such
as skydiving, bungee-jumping, or riding motorcycles? How about drinking more than
one cup of coffee each day?

19

20

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

THOSE IN FAVOUR OF BANING

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES ( what
they might say to support their
arguments)

THOSE AGAINST LEGISLATION (our counter

arguments)

The main reasons offered by those who are against

the introduction of legislation to ban smoking in
The main reasons offered by those in favour of enclosed public places are:
legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places
are as follows:
Health evidence not sufficient reason
Health benefits
The link between passive smoking
Legislation will reduce the exposure of
and health is not believed to be
non-smokers to ETS and reduce
sufficient rationale for such
morbidity and mortality from smoking
legislation.
related diseases amongst the Scottish
If the health risks are so severe than
population in the long term.
many other harmful things that pose
Legislation will increase cessation rates:
a threat to public health should also
smokers will find it easier to give up.
be banned.
Legislation will reduce smoking prevalence:
smokers will smoke less.

The link between ETS and health risks are

disputed.

Economic benefit

Economic consequences

Contrary to the concerns of the

licensed trade and hospitality sector,
the legislation could have a positive
impact on trade and business.
A review of literature has indicated
that there is no evidence of a
negative impact on licensed trades in
countries where legislation has been
introduced

Rights and choices

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

21

The rights of the non-smoker to a

smoke-free environment supersede
the rights of smokers to smoke
where they wish and affect others by
their smoking.
No one should be subjected to
second hand smoke involuntarily.

There are fears of job losses and

business closures in licensed trade
and hospitality sector.
There are fears for losses in the
tourist industry.

Rights and choices

Such legislation is viewed as an

infringement of personal choices and
rights.
Smokers should have the right to
smoke; non-smokers can choose to
avoid smoky places.
Businesses should be able to decide
for themselves.

Strong government

This will present a strong statement

about government's stance on
smoking.
This will improve the public image
of the Romanians Executive by
demonstrating strong action on a
matter of significant public health
concern.

Protect workers equally

Public health legislation would have

the same effect as health and safety
legislation.
There is a need for guidelines for
those working in possible exempted
sectors, such as care homes,
hospitals and prisons

Nanny state

Such legislation is viewed as

unnecessary and excessive
interference of the government.
It is driven by a fear of litigation not
public health. The government needs
to cover itself from future litigation
should they not protect the public
from the effects of smoking when
the dangers are well known.

Worker protection would be a stronger

reason

The restrictions would be enacted

through public health legislation, not
workplace legislation, but it is felt
that there is greater justification for
this type of legislation if it is passed
with the aim of protecting the rights
of all employees whilst at work.
The legislation will not cover all
workplaces. Employees who are
employed in outdoor work contexts
will be excluded from the measures
thus reinforcing double standards on
an employee's right to protection
from ETS.

Difficult to enforce half measures or

partial bans

Difficult to introduce and enforce

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

22

Partial restrictions are confusing and

are more difficult to enforce than a
total ban. Evidence from abroad
confirms this.
Research has indicated that smokers
are more likely to violate restrictions
than a ban.
Partial ban would be difficult to
justify on public health grounds.

It will be very difficult to police and

enforce these measures, especially in
rural areas.
It could lead to more violence and
loitering outside pubs.
It could cause practical problems in
venues where there is controlled
entry, such as night clubs, as
smokers move in and out of the
building to smoke.
It is a waste of police resources

Exemptions send a mixed message,

can create confusion or result in loop
holes or grey areas.

.
Improvement to public social
environments

Negative impact on community fabric

It will create a cleaner, healthier

environment.
The removal of discomfort and smell
will be of enormous benefit to
everyone especially in pubs and
restaurants.

Separation and segregation do not work

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014

23

Smoke does not respect boundaries.

Legislation is needed because
voluntary measures are ineffective
especially in businesses in the
hospitality sector.
Seven out of ten pubs allow smoking
throughout despite the introduction
of the voluntary charter.

The legislation will negatively affect

community relations by effectively
excluding some people from going to
pubs such as elderly individuals who
smoke and live alone.
It will split up non-smokers from
their smoking friends during an
evening out socializing.
It could move smoking into the
home and expose children to ETS.

Enough is already being done

There are already restrictions and

bans in place in place in many
enclosed public places and these are
sufficient.
Voluntary action through measures
such as the voluntary charter could
be effective without resorting to
legislation.

24

Smoking in public places | 27.05.2014