Table of contentsSummaryIntroductionGenesis of the banThe opinion of the government's chief medical officer as the impetus for introducing the banDifference between the The approach of the Labor Party and that of the Conservative Party to the ban.Ideology of right and leftSummarySummaryThe subject of considerations in this work is the Smoking Ban Act, the laws prohibiting smoking in public places, adopted by the British parliament in 2006 and entered into force on July 1, 2007. The objective of the reflection is to present the political and social determinants of the introduction of the law in the United Kingdom. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essayIntroductionIntroduction, it should be noted that the legal act described was not the first in the British Isles to deal with this subject . Since the 1960s, the government's Public Health Agency in London has worked to reduce the number of deaths and illnesses caused by smoking. These initiatives reduced the smoking rate in society from 70% of men in 1962 to 24% in 2005 (Wald, Nicolaides-Bouman, 1991). The seriousness of this problem has been recognized and efforts have been made to overcome it. Evidence of the health effects of passive smoking and a decrease in the percentage of the population who smoke have increased interest in smoking in public places. In 1998, the Labor Government published the first ever White Paper on Tobacco and Cigarettes and continued its tradition of relying on a voluntary approach to controlling smoking in public places. By the early 2000s it was clear that the level of compliance with the voluntary ban was low and the government in London, also in the context of outdoor smoking, was increasingly pushing for a legal ban on smoking. This would, however, represent something of a sea change in the UK government's actions to regulate private behavior, and would risk significant opposition within Parliament. A manifesto presented by the Labor Party in 2005 proposed only a partial ban. However, this project was not completed. It should also be noted that today the complete ban on smoking in public places is widely accepted and its general compliance is relatively high. A closer look will analyze how this breakthrough was achieved over decades of efforts to reduce smoking rates in public places. Genesis of the ban To fully understand the genesis of the ban, it is necessary to go back years ago, when the first regulations in this area were introduced. In 1997 the elections were won by the Labor Party. The new Labor government initially had a very mixed attitude on the tobacco issue – although it increased tax rates from 3% to 5% on tobacco products, it had a controversial stance regarding the exemption on its territory of Formula 1 of the European directive on tobacco. advertising and sponsorship. Tessa Jowell, who was appointed British Minister of Public Health in 1997, has been recognized as a pro-smoking person. However, she quickly decided to take action to “tackle health inequalities” due to smoking in society. The most important of these activities is "Smoking Kills" (1998), the government's first white paper on smoking, particularly education, voluntary agreements with tobacco companies and nicotine replacement therapies, the all with the aim of facilitatingstopping smoking. and reduce the impact of this addiction mainly on children and young adults. These proposals have been followed by a growing number of calls for the government to take more active steps to harness the significant health benefits of quitting smoking and the impact of tobacco smoke. In 2002, the British Medical Association (BMA) called for a ban on smoking in public places due to the risk to non-smokers (The Ban on Smoking in Public Places, 2007). By the late 1990s, smoking was already banned in many offices as well as enclosed public places such as cinemas and transport, but only in a handful of pubs, bars and restaurants. Therefore, these facilities have become a particular topic of debate over the need for legislation to protect workers and customers from exposure to passive smoking. The government continued to advocate self-regulation of smoking behavior. In July 1999, the Health and Safety Committee proposed a code of conduct on passive smoking in the workplace. Introduced in September 1999, the Public Places Charter was signed by fourteen industry associations. The agreement stipulated that 50 percent of all establishments would have to adopt a formal smoking policy and that 35 percent of them would have to restrict smoking only to designated areas or provide adequate ventilation. However, despite progress toward these goals, the percentage of smoke-free seats has only increased from 1% to 2%. There was no strategy to extend the above measures within the Labor Party government (Smoking Ban in Public Places, 2007). A similar position was also represented by the Conservative Party. Its representatives - as was the case in the Labor Party - said the market would self-regulate and that individual premises owners should have the freedom to create smoke-free spaces. Opinion from government's chief medical officer as impetus to introduce ban The government's chief medical officer, Dr Liam Donaldson, wanted to use his position to argue for more decisive action. Its annual report (for 2002) was published in June 2003 with a clear recommendation that the UK adopt a mandatory ban on smoking in public places, as industry-specific voluntary agreements have not reduced (rapidly enough ) the health risks linked to passive smoking. . Not only was this a bold change from current government policy, but it also presented unforeseen challenges. L. Donaldson described the timing of the report's release as "terrible" due to the resignation of then-Health Minister Alan Milburn just before the scheduled release date. As this annual report has always been prepared independently, it was only presented to ministers the day before its publication. L. Donaldson discussed the report with A. Milburn, but the Secretary of State resigned his government post. John Reid was appointed in his place. This caused a slight delay in the publication of the document. However, the final publication of the CMO report meant that it was inevitable that the ban on smoking in public places would be fixed and resolved in the Labor Party's 2005 election manifesto. The debate over this became very intense. Two crucial decisions had to be made. The first is whether or not to pass such legislation. It was clear that the existing voluntary approach was not working with only a few pubs banning smoking. The lack of self-regulation has forced the government to adopt stricter measures. HASIn this regard, ASH found John Reid's contribution particularly critical. He is the only Minister of Health who has so far taken such a negative position and has not at all influenced other members of the government to overcome resistance to legislation in this area. J. Reid was a heavy smoker, only quitting 18 months before taking office. He is skeptical of calls for a total ban on smoking in public places. Speaking at the Great Labor Conversation in June 2004. Difference between the Labor Party and Conservative Party approach to the ban. The hybrid proposal appeared in the Labor Party manifesto for the May 2005 general election. After Labor's victory, John Reid was replaced as Health Secretary by P. Hewitt. She had to decide how to pass the new legislation through Parliament. The cabinet itself was still divided over the proposal and there was a strong campaign to implement comprehensive measures. In the new parliament, Kevin Barron was appointed chairman of the health committee. This was because he was a long-time advocate of tobacco control measures. He quickly decided to work at the Commission on Smoking in Public Places. At the start of the committee hearings, most of the eleven deputies were against the smoking ban. However, evidence of the effectiveness of this type of ban has been systematically collected, for example in Ireland. On October 27, 2005, the Health Improvement Act was published. Since the compromise clause on private clubs and non-food public places was included in its content, criticism of the new regulations has come both from supporters of the total ban and from the lobby of the nicotine, although there was a growing consensus in the hospitality industry that restrictions should apply to the entire sector in order to preserve fair competition. There were fears that some pubs would simply stop serving food to avoid the ban. In these circumstances, the Conservative Party has always maintained that self-regulation is necessary in this area. In 2005, that party's platform on the future of health care stated, among other things, that "We do not believe that food producers are responsible for the fact that if people eat unhealthily...we do not believe not that pubs are to blame if people drink or smoke. We will seek voluntary, non-statutory solutions to public health problems” (Jones, 2005). The authorities of the aforementioned Conservative Party have decided that its deputies have complete freedom to make decisions on this matter. This was to exert a kind of pressure on the ruling Labor Party, which for a very long time failed to establish a unified position, despite its previous political statements. The key moment in this situation was when the opposition decided to give its members the right to vote freely on the ban. This came at a time when the winning government was very worried about whether it would get enough votes from its MPs. The Prime Minister indicated that he did not consider the smoking ban, despite it being a clearly defined election commitment, as important as other controversial issues he was dealing with at the time . This also paved the way for free voting on the ruling party side. The problem for supporters of a total ban at the time was how to obtain a sufficiently large majority in the House of Commons to resist pressure from the House of Lords. On February 14, 2006,supporters of the ban won the first vote. Many MPs initially opposed to the total ban voted by a majority - 200 people - to introduce completely smoke-free zones in public places and workplaces. The Lords, despite resistance from Lord Tebbit, voted like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. This is why, finally, in December 2006, the government announced that the smoking ban in England would come into force on July 1, 2007. The legal changes presented met with some social resistance. An initiative called Freedom of Choice has launched a campaign for a review of the ban on smoking in the workplace. Its officials claimed that the 1998 Human Rights Act had been violated because it did not respect the privacy rights of people who wish to smoke in public places. Proponents of the regulation argued that smokers' right to smoke would expire as soon as it negatively affected other people around them. Right and left ideology Regarding the ban, the Conservative Party did not recognize its legitimacy. The party supported the search for non-statutory methods to improve the health of society. This clearly shows a difference between the right-wing Conservative Party and the left-wing, pro-ban Labor Party. There is clearly a general difference in the approach to the smoking ban versus the policy option. In my opinion, however, the question of introducing a smoking ban must be examined across political divisions. In order to understand the issue of the ban, we need to go back many years, where we can observe a trend that subsequently influenced the imposition of the ban. Special attention should be taken into account that some companies have started to implement smoking bans regardless of government decisions. We can therefore say that it was public opinion which exerted the pressure which directly resulted in the introduction of the ban. A very important aspect is the fact that members of the opposition and the ruling party had the free choice to accept or reject the proposed legal act. The vote of the deputies was therefore a vote of public opinion rather than that of members of political parties. Of course, they voted for the parties they represented, but they had complete freedom to make their decisions. MPs voted as ordinary citizens, in accordance with their conscience and their opinion on the issue of smoking, and not according to a pre-imposed party decision. In my opinion, viewing the ban from the perspective of the left or the right is fundamentally wrong. Activities carried out by the public, entrepreneurs running pubs or hangouts, in one way or another forced the introduction of a ban. In my opinion, when the Conservative Party or any other right-wing party was in power, the situation would have followed the same course, even if conservative parties are not in the habit of interfering in such an issue, fully aware that the The culture of smoking is deeply rooted in society. Right-wing ideology is characterized by a more traditional approach to many issues, such as a culture in which smoking is an important element, as well as a skeptical attitude towards change. The complete ban on smoking in public is undoubtedly such a change. Interventionism in this area is characterized more by a left-wing ideology, more protective and, even at the cost of a certain freedom from society, it tries to take care of one's health and physical condition. Politics.