|
A year after smoking was stubbed out in public places, JAMES DEBONO looks back at a year in which smokers retreated from indoors, more people gave up smoking, and whether the long arm of the law treated establishments equally.
Since the ban on smoking in public places came into force in October 2004, an average of two people a day have been booked by the police for smoking, or for permitting smoking in bars, restaurants and public places.
In total, 176 people were charged for breaking the law on smoking in the past year, a fact which both businessman Philip Fenech and health crusader Mario Spiteri, contend that when it comes to enforcement, not everyone is being treated equally.
In fact, the Malta Chamber of SMEs (GRTU) leisure and hospitality president Philip Fenech believes the law is in fact not equal for everyone: “Certain establishments are stating they have been checked frequently, others that they have been checked occasionally, while certain establishments have never been checked.”
Claiming that enforcing the ban on clientele requires the costly employment of security personnel, Fenech says some establishments will risk being booked – and that in turn would mean less business for those bars and restaurants who are fully abiding with the smoking ban.
Health Promotion director Mario Spiteri also says the department still receives complaints on places where smoking is still rampant.
The most common defaulters hail from Paceville and St Julians, “where two or three prime night spots are the worst offenders,” Spiteri says.
According to Fenech, the discrepancy between the approach of certain health inspectors and police is denoted by its “vindictiveness”.
Fenech praises law enforcers who use practical common sense when enforcing the smoking ban.
“When they surprise a client who is evidently hiding in a corner of the establishment to smoke a cigarette, these officials refrain from penalising the owner of the establishment,” Fenech said, praising those law enforcers who used “practical common sense”.
“But in one particular case, an owner was arraigned because a client was smoking in the restroom. Are owners expected to monitor clients in the restrooms?”
Fenech also said some owners were not being notified when clients were caught smoking in their establishment, receiving a court summons without their prior knowledge of when the infringement took place.
Spiteri however says it is establishments who should take ownership of this problem. “It is indeed a pity that security staff in some popular discotheques are condoning smoking indoors on the wrong pretext that they are not the police and have nothing to do with the enforcement of the smoking regulations.”
Fenech calls the burden of responsibility “unfair”: “The law should penalise the offender. It is unfair to penalise someone for a crime committed by someone else.”
Anti-smoke patrol
Fenech believes added enforcement can only come through the employment of more security personnel, but that would mean an added economic hardship.
“These are hard economic facts. Sales have definitely gone down not just because of the smoking regulations but also due to the general economic situation.”
Spiteri says business can only thrive where non-smokers are not frequenting establishments under the smoking ban more than ever before. “A case in point is how a club in Birkirkara managed to follow the law to the letter and yet still attract a very good custom.”
But the argument is derided as a fallacy by the GRTU. Fenech looks at the matter on a freedom-of-choice basis. “If there is a demand for non-smoking places, the market would have catered for it through the opening of more non-smoking places. We have always argued in favour of a voluntary ban on smoking.”
But it seems that one of the goals of the ban on smoking in public places has been reached. There are indications the smoking ban has encouraged more people to attend smoking cessation clinics.
Certainly, 2004 was a bumper year for the Health Promotion department. While only 10 classes were conducted in 2003, 25 classes were conducted in 2004 and 19 classes have been conducted in the first six months of 2005.
“In 2004 the number of classes increased by 150 per cent. No studies were carried out in this regard but it does not take much to conclude that the sharp increase is due to Malta’s smoke free policy,” Spiteri says.
Philip Fenech, a non-smoker himself, lauds the efforts made of the health authorities to eradicate the deadly habit but he still contends that one cannot ignore economic considerations when clamping down on smoking in bars and discos.
Smokers stubbed
He points out restaurants are the most compliant, where the majority of smokers have accepted the restrictions, opting to have a smoke outdoors or make use of the few smoking rooms provided.
Fenech agrees the smoking ban in restaurants has been positive, his only reservation being that the ban extends to the bar area of the restaurant. But the ban has been especially negative in bars lacking an open-air area.
“People are constantly coming in and out to smoke. During the peak of activity many clients prefer to consume alcohol outdoors. This has broken the dynamics of nightlife,” Fenech ominously states, calling the outdoor smokers a “new subculture of people’ who end up drinking alcohol while sitting on the pavement.
“Business is shifting from bars to takeaway bottle shops. To circumvent the ban on carrying bottles, many are drinking their alcohol from plastic cups,” Fenech argues.
He also laments that establishments are forced to abide with smoking regulations even when they cater for private functions held behind closed doors. “Many smokers are now resorting to renting apartments and villas for such functions, resulting in a further loss in business.”
Tourists it seems, have also been an added problem for establishments, unaccustomed to the Maltese smoking ban rules: “At times it is the tourists who flout the law and then the locals quickly follow up the example and follow suit upon noting that nobody warned the foreigners to stub out their cigarettes,” Spiteri says.
For Fenech, this new conundrum is a symptom of the fact that Malta introduced the ban before other European countries: “Tourists hailing from countries where smoking is allowed in bars are not accustomed to our laws. These are bound to create problems. It would have been wiser had the government introduced the smoking ban after and not before other European countries.”
jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt
|
