Alternatives to total ban (From Swindon Advertiser)

Alternatives to total ban

10:11am Wednesday 27th June 2007

• Print
• Email
• Share

I FEEL I ought to respond to the letter by Craig Halliday (SA, June 22). I think he really ought to read the article again and try to actually understand what I was saying.

The very issues he raises are the reason that Freedom to Choose is not seeking for the ban to be overturned. What we are seeking is a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard, which will clean the air to make it 99.97 per cent free of all harmful toxins.

Smoking bans only remove 80 per cent at best (not my opinion, that of Government research conducted in Scotland following their ban).

The main reason that seems to be used time and again is the smell etc.

By using the systems that now exist neither the smell or smoke would be an issue for customers or staff. With the potential for 5,000 pub closures and 50,000 job losses, who are the selfish ones? Those who seek compromise or those who just wish to demonise smokers.

Nowhere in the world have bans achieved an increase in revenue, partial bans work and continue to reduce levels of smoking. Total bans have the reverse effect and move the smoking to the home where we are told by government that 95 per cent of harm from passive smoking occurs.

However, I will leave you with one final point. ASHRAE the agency HMG relied on for advice, that ventilation/filtration would not be effective, have just (May) published their revised guidelines where they say that modern ventilation/filtration can effectively remove all ETS even in common areas and buildings. In other words there is an alternative to a total ban.

R FEAL-MARTINEZ.

The Carpenters Arms.

South Marston.

Swindon

• Print
• Email
• Share