Smoking

Stubbing it out Nov 11th 2004 From The Economist print edition

What effect will Scotland’s smoking ban have?

IT WAS a radical, sweeping and entirely expected move. On November 10th the Scottish cabinet voted to follow Ireland, New York and Norway in banning smoking in public places, including pubs, restaurants and even private members’ clubs.

The Scottish Executive argues that Scotland is one of the unhealthiest nations in Europe, and smoking is partly to blame. Some 31% of Scots smoke, compared with 26% of Britons. Lung cancer rates are 49% higher in Scotland than in the rest of the country. Jack McConnell, Scotland’s first minister, says that cigarette sales in New York fell by 13% after a ban was introduced in 2003, and by 16% in Ireland, which brought one in earlier this year.

Whether the public is as keen as its leaders is less clear. The Scottish Executive insists that there is support for a total ban, but a leaked internal poll indicated that only half the population was in favour. A different poll, conducted by Populus for the pro-smoking group Forest, found that 73% opposed an outright ban; most favoured a compromise of some sort.

Nor is the likely impact on Scottish business any clearer. The Licensed Traders’ Association, which represents Scottish pubs, predicted 30,000 jobs would go. Nonsense, said the government.

Evidence from overseas sheds little light. After the ban in Ireland, the Irish Brewers’ Association reported a 6% decline in beer sales in pubs. But the Irish are among the heaviest drinkers in Europe, and sales fell by a similar amount in 2003, before the ban. So the decline may be part of a long-term trend. The Vintners’ Association, which represents Dublin pubs, says it has clearer statistics: it reckons that trade is down about 16%, and that about 2,000 jobs have gone.

Anti-smoking groups prefer to point to New York, where a government study reported that bars and restaurants had hired 2,800 extra staff to cope with increased demand in the wake of the ban there. But the New York Nightlife Association, a trade body, points out that the study covered workers in fast-food restaurants that had never allowed smoking on their premises, even before the ban. It reckons that employment has fallen by 10%—although the number of people applying for a licence to run a bar has stayed the same.

Smokers will now turn their attention to England, which has been toying with the idea of a ban for some time. Ministers there are thought to be reluctant to ban smoking outright, especially with a general election looming, but new health proposals dealing with the subject are due before the end of the year. No doubt the English ministers will be studying the Scottish debate closely.

这是一次根本、彻底并且众望所归的行动。11月10日紧随爱尔兰、纽约和挪威之后，苏格兰内阁就禁止在公共场所吸烟进行了投票，包括在酒吧、饭馆、甚至私人会所。

苏格兰行政院认为，苏格兰是欧洲最不健康的国家之一，其中吸烟要承担部分责任。大约31%的苏格兰人吸烟，相比之下，全英国这一数字为26%。肺癌发病率比英国其他地区高出49%。苏格兰首席大臣杰克•麦康奈说，纽约在提出禁止吸烟后香烟的销售下降了13%，而爱尔兰在今年早些时候采取禁烟之后香烟的销售更是下降了16%。

公众是否也和领导人们一样急切还尚不明朗。苏格兰行政院坚持称全面禁烟很受支持，可是一项官方透露的国内民意调查显示，仅有一半的人口对此感兴趣。另一项由Populus为主张吸烟的组织Forest进行的民意调查发现，73%的人反对直接禁令;多数人赞成一定程度的折衷。

同样，对于苏格兰商业可能的影响也不清楚。代表苏格兰酒吧的注册商人协会预计将会失去30000个就业机会。政府则回答，那还用说!

海外的迹象也没有带来什么希望。爱尔兰实行禁令以后，爱尔兰酿酒协会报告称酒吧啤酒销售下降了6%。不过爱尔兰是欧洲最能喝酒的国家之一，在禁烟令实行以前的2003年销售量也下降了差不多的数量。所以这一下降数字可能只是长期发展趋势的一部分。代表都柏林酒吧业的葡萄酒商协会声称有更清楚的统计数字：他们估计，生意下降了16%，而大约2000个工作岗位没有了。

反对吸烟的组织则更喜欢提及纽约，那里的一项政府研究报告称酒吧和餐馆已经额外雇用了2800个员工来处理紧随禁烟令而来的不断增长的需求。然而一个名为纽约夜生活协会的贸易团体指出，这项研究涵盖了即使在禁令以前也从未允许吸烟的快餐餐馆的工人。据估计，尽管申请执照开酒吧的人数维持不变，可是就业却已经下降了10%。

烟民们这回要转而注意英格兰了，那里琢磨采用禁令也有一段时间了。人们都觉得大臣们对于直接彻底地禁烟还有些为难，尤其是在大选临近，可是与此有关的新的健康计划预计今年年底将会实施。无疑，英国的大臣们将密切关注苏格兰的有关争论。