The first recorded official ban on smoking was in Catholic Churches in 1590 by Pope Urban the VII (it included chewing and pipe smoking). The next big ban was a wooden government building in New Zealand. The most interesting stop, though on the Smoking Ban historical line is Natzi Germany. They get the mark for the first nation wide ban on smoking in modern times (1941). They banned smoking in most government offices, universities, hospitals and other places like that.
Adolf's disdain for any oral fixation is well documented but the order was based on research that is still considered relevant today (Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research). The main idea though is that the notion to ban smoking publicly is not in any way new. Of course, lawsuit crazy Americans have inspired the most recent wave of laws in the US.
Most people who have experience with China will assume that a reduction in smoking is a low priority for the mainland but that actually is not the case. Smoking overall has been decreasing by 1% a year (actually a very big number) and the Olympics was supposedly a "Smoke-free" event. The central government has enacted a very serious plan to further support a reduction in smoking. Major chain restaurants like Pizza Hut have also had a huge impact on the public perception of smoking. Nevertheless, one wouldn't expect this to be something Beijing would stick their neck out for.
For us at EDDI-BITES, is issue goes beyond the arena health to the issue private vs public rights of space usage. In China a restaurant by definition is "public" space. In china a business owner does not have the right to deny service to anyone. "Sit-ins" are a common technique in contract and conflict negotiation. This is where a business like a restaurant will have conflict with a vendor and the vendor will organize a person to sit at each table all day long and not order anything. In this type of a case the owner can not remove them barring the owner have some sort of a special relationship with the area police.
In the past a restaurant space was defined as "private" in Hong Kong. This is what makes the issue so relevant to the Chinese government today. If a bar wants to cater to a smoking clientele they don't have the right to do so (as is the case in other places as well).
Property and business rights and the authority of Hong Kong law makers are what we feel are at issue in yesterday's action. 3 years ago the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars was passed with fanfare. The
Chinese government at the time interfered less with Hong Kong legal process. Today, because of the financial crisis social democrat Alber Chan Wai-yip wanted to put off the implementation of the ban on smoking in bars and clubs. There is good evidence to show that the ban increases sales in restaurants and decreases sales in bars. Here's where it gets interesting: They were told that they can not introduce legislation that crosses or interferes with government policy.
WOW!!!! Council president Tsang Yok-sing (jasper - appointed by Beijing and one of the biggest Beijing butt kissers in Hong Kong) issued the statement. He did say that they can try to get a signature from the guy with the next biggest office (in this case the chief executive - also a Beijing appointee). Small business owners should not passively observe this. It is significant, the merits of the smoking ban aside.
In the US now smoking bans are on the books in many places. They are largely unconstitutional. Nevertheless, most people in the states support a ban on smoking around food. Why work to turn back the clock when most people want a smoke free environment anyway? Bars are a different story and the data really does support a change in policy.
Our general feeling regarding Hong Kong is that the ban will not overtly hurt bars because enforcement is going to be lax. The city can't even enforce basic hygiene standards in restaurants. It's easy to photograph cooks not wearing hairnets, gloves or face masks. We have even collected a picture of a restaurant manager smoking in a cold kitchen area. That's definitely a case of smoking illegally already. Is it really reasonable to add more to enforcement's plate at this time? Pick any major regulatory point for restaurants and bars (fire safety systems, ventilation systems, etc...) and you will find that enforcement in Hong Kong is dismal at best.
Hong kong people may not want to hear this but standards in Hong KOng are bellow standards in Shanghai. Not regarding what is on the books but regarding enforcement. Why? Because Shanghai people know the law and there is always someone in the mix who will threaten to report you if you don't give them money. So you make sure your cook has the face mask on. It's that simple. In Hong Kong people rely on the regulator's to do their jobs. Most offices are very over worked. Now is not the time to add another layer of responsibility.
Gregory David Duerfeldt
..........................
Attempt to delay smoking ban fails
From the SCMP Tuesday May 12, 2009 A last-ditch attempt by a legislator to delay by two years the imposition of a smoking ban in nightclubs, bars and mahjong schools has been defeated.
Legislative Council president Tsang Yok-sing ruled that the attempt breached a ban on lawmakers introducing bills related to "government policy".
League of Social Democrats lawmaker Albert Chan Wai-yip, who initiated the move, criticised Mr Tsang's ruling as making a mockery of the legislature's power but said he was not too surprised by the result, given the non-democratic political system.
Mr Chan's bill sought to defer the implementation date of the smoking ban in venues like bars, clubs and mahjong schools by two years to July 1, 2011.
He said the deferment would help tide those establishments over the current economic downturn.
In his ruling, Mr Tsang said: "The amendments to be effected by Mr Chan's bill would defer the implementation of the smoking ban ... by a period of two years. As such, Mr Chan's bill clearly impacts upon government policy and the effect cannot be said to be negligible or minimal."
Accordingly, he ruled that Mr Chan's bill might not be introduced without the written consent of the chief executive.
Mr Chan said yesterday he did not intend to pursue the matter further.
"If the government is so eager to protect people's health, why does it not ban wine as well?" he asked.
He also said Mr Tsang's ruling had deprived the Legislative Council of a chance to review a bill it endorsed three years ago.
The amended ordinance extends no-smoking areas to indoor areas of all restaurants, workplaces and some public outdoor places. Some premises, like bars, nightclubs, mahjong schools and massage parlours, were allowed to delay the changes until July 1 this year.
"The economic situation now is totally different from that three years ago," Mr Chan said. "What legislators thought was suitable then might not be timely now."
Lillian Chan Yun-lin, convenor of the Entertainment Business Rights Concern Group, expressed "extreme disappointment" with Mr Tsang's ruling and accused it of "effectively killing their business".
"The smoking ban will drive away more of our smoker customers. We are not against anti-smoking [initiatives], but just want more time," said Ms Chan, whose group is a coalition of entertainment premises.
"If the government wants people to quit smoking, it should enhance education and not do so at the expense of our business.
Related links and references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsang_Yok-sing (Right)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_CHAN_Wai-yip (Left)
Posts
