January, 2009:

Jan 01, 2009 – SCMP

With the second phase of the smoking ban due to be implemented this summer, many bar owners have called for smoking rooms to be installed.

They believe a total smoking ban will lead to more restaurants, bars and nightclubs closing. The proprietors argue that with the smoking rooms they would be able to retain customers who smoke.

A number of restaurants have closed in Hong Kong, but this is due to the economic tsunami, not the smoking ban.

There have been a number of surveys showing that a smoking ban does not lead to the closure of restaurants. On the contrary, it leads to increased profits.

Advocates of smoking rooms say they enable a business to strike the right balance for smokers and non-smokers. Nevertheless, smoke will still escape from smoking rooms to other areas of the premises and non-smokers will still be exposed to passive smoking.

Also, have supporters of smoking rooms forgotten the right of staff in pubs, nightclubs and restaurants to work in a smoke-free environment?

It seems that to some people, making a profit is much more important than the welfare of staff. They must learn to be more considerate.

Lui Na-chun, Wong Tai Sin

Jan 01, 2009 – SCMP

I fully agree with the letters from K. Stanton and Markus Shaw (Talkback, December 29) regarding their views on the smoking ban and, in particular, K. Stanton’s views on Anthony Hedley (Talkback, December 18), Judith Mackay (Talkback, December 11), Annelise Connell (Talkback, December 17) and the Clear the Air lobby.

What has happened to the rights of people and their personal choice?

There is nothing wrong with a bar or a restaurant allowing people to smoke inside.

It is the choice of the customer whether or not to patronise that bar. Forget smoking rooms; a restaurant should either permit smoking or not.

It is then the choice of the employee whether or not to work in that bar or restaurant and the choice of the customer to go where he pleases.

What is wrong with a free market economy?

The many studies issued or quoted by the aforementioned people do not categorically prove many of their claims.

The tax from tobacco is still a major revenue earner for the Hong Kong government and I believe more than covers the cost to the government of smoking-related illnesses. If these people, with their own personal agendas, wish to pursue their desire to save money and to stop people dying, then I suggest that they start a new zealous pursuit of banning alcohol.

Alcohol causes far more problems to citizens than smoking – for example, drink-driving and alcoholism. The cost to society and, ultimately, the taxpayer is far more than smoking.

These correspondents should get off their high horses and either stop their complaints about smoking, or start now to call for a complete ban on alcohol in Hong Kong. If they can successfully ban the sale of alcohol in the city, I will stop smoking.

Andy Boulton, Aberdeen