IndexSummaryIntroductionGenesis of the banThe opinion of the government chief as the impetus for the introduction of the banDifference in the approach of the Labor Party and the Conservative Party to the problem of smoking ban.Ideology of the right and leftSummaryAbstractThe object of considerations in this work is the Smoking Ban Act, the law that prohibits smoking in public places, adopted by the British Parliament in 2006 and came into force on 1 July 2007. The aim of the considerations is to present the political and social determinants of the introduction of the law in the United Kingdom. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay IntroductionAs an introduction, it should be noted that the legal act described was not the first in the British Isles to address this topic. Since the 1960s, the Government's Public Health Agency in London has focused on reducing the number of deaths and illnesses caused by smoking. These initiatives have reduced the level of smoking in society from 70% of men in 1962 to 24% in 2005 (Wald, Nicolaides-Bouman, 1991). The severity of the problem has been recognized and efforts have been made to overcome it. Evidence of the health effects of passive smoking and the declining percentage of the population that smokes have increased interest in smoking in public places. In 1998, the Labor government published the first so-called White Paper on tobacco and cigarettes and continued its tradition of relying on a voluntary approach to controlling smoking in public places. By the early 2000s it was clear that the level of compliance with the voluntary ban was low and the London government, including in the context of outdoor smoking, was increasingly pushing for a legal smoking ban. This would, however, represent something of a step change in the British government's actions to regulate private behavior, and would risk significant opposition within parliament. A manifesto presented by the Labor Party in 2005 proposed only a partial ban. However, it was not completed. It should also be emphasized that nowadays the total ban on smoking in public places is widely accepted and its general compliance is relatively high. Further considerations will allow us to analyze how this progress has been achieved over decades of efforts to reduce smoking rates in public places. Genesis of the ban To fully understand the genesis of the ban, it is necessary to go back years ago, when the first regulations on the matter were issued. this area has been introduced. In 1997 the elections were won by the Labor Party. The new Labor Party government initially had a very mixed attitude towards the tobacco issue: although it increased tax rates on tobacco products from 3% to 5%, it had a controversial position regarding the exemption of Formula 1 on its territory by the EU Directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. Tessa Jowell, appointed Britain's public health minister in 1997, has been recognized as a pro-smoking figure. However, he quickly decided to take action to "address health inequalities" caused by smoking in society. The most important of these activities is "Smoking Kills" (1998), the first government White Paper on smoking, particularly on education, voluntary agreements with tobacco companies and nicotine replacement therapy, all with the aim of making it easier for people to quit smoking. and reduce the impact of this addiction especially on children and young adults. These proposals were followed by a growing number ofcalls for the Government to take more active measures to achieve the significant health benefits of smoking cessation and the impact of tobacco smoking. In 2002, the British Medical Association (BMA) called for a ban on smoking in public places due to the risk to non-smokers (The Ban on Smoking in Public Places, 2007). At the end of the 1990s, smoking was already prohibited in many offices, as well as in closed public places such as cinemas and transport, but only in a handful of pubs, bars and restaurants. As a result, these facilities have become a particular focus of debate over the need for legislation to protect workers and customers from exposure to second-hand smoke. The government continued to support self-regulation of tobacco behavior. In July 1999, the Health and Safety Committee proposed a code of practice on second-hand smoking at work. Introduced in September 1999, the so-called Public Places Charter was signed by fourteen trade associations. The agreement stated that 50% of all establishments would have to adopt a formal no-smoking policy and 35% of them would have to limit smoking to only designated areas or provide adequate ventilation. However, despite progress in achieving these goals, the percentage of smoke-free places has only increased from 1% to 2%. There was no strategy to extend the above measures in the Labor Party government (The Ban on Smoking in Public Places 2007). A similar position was also represented by the Conservative Party. Its representatives, as in the case of the Labor Party, declared that the market would be self-regulating and that individual premises owners should have the freedom to create smoke-free spaces. Government chief's opinion as impetus to introduce ban Government chief, Dr Liam Donaldson, wanted to use his position to support more decisive action. Its annual report (for 2002) was published in June 2003 with a clear recommendation that the UK move to mandatory smoking bans in public places, as sector-specific voluntary agreements were not reducing (quickly enough) risks to health resulting from passive smoking. . This was not only a bold departure from current government policy, but also faced unforeseen difficulties. L. Donaldson described the timing of the report's release as "terrible" due to the resignation of then health minister Alan Milburn, shortly before the expected publication date. As this annual report has always been independently prepared, it was not shown to ministers until the night before its publication. L. Donaldson spoke about the relationship with A. Milburn, but the Secretary of State resigned from his position in the government. John Reid was appointed in his place. This resulted in a short delay in the publication of the document. However, the final publication of the CMO report made it inevitable that the ban on smoking in public places would have to be fixed and resolved in the Labor Party's 2005 election manifesto. The debate over this became very intense. Two crucial decisions had to be made. The first is whether or not to decide on such legislation. It was clear that the existing voluntary approach was not working as only a few pubs were smoke-free. The lack of self-regulation has forced the government to take tougher measures. In this regard, ASH considered John Reid's contribution particularly critical. Being the only Minister of Health who has so far taken such a strong negative position and has not at all influenced other members of the government to overcome resistance to the legislation in thissector. J. Reid was a heavy smoker, quitting smoking only 18 months before taking office. He was skeptical of calls for a total ban on smoking in public places. Speech at the Labor Big Conversation in June 2004. Difference in the Labor Party and Conservative Party's approach to the ban. The hybrid proposal appeared in the Labor Party's manifesto for the May 2005 general election. Following the Labor Party's victory, John Reid was replaced as Health Secretary by P. Hewitt. He had to decide how to pass the new legislation in parliament. The cabinet itself was still divided over the proposal and there was a strong campaign to implement comprehensive measures. In the new parliament, Kevin Barron was appointed chairman of the health commission. This is because he was a long-standing supporter of tobacco control measures. He quickly decided to work at the Commission on Smoking in Public Places. At the beginning of the committee hearings, the majority of the eleven deputies were against the smoking ban. However, evidence on the effectiveness of this type of ban has been collected systematically, for example in Ireland. On October 27, 2005, the Health Improvement Act was published. Given that the compromise clause on private clubs and public non-food establishments was included in its content, criticism of the new regulation came both from supporters of the total ban and from the nicotine lobby, although there has been growing consensus in the hospitality sector that restrictions should apply across the entire sector to preserve fair competition. There were fears that some pubs would simply stop serving food to avoid the ban. In these circumstances, the Conservative Party has always argued that self-regulation is necessary. In 2005, this party's agenda on the future of healthcare stated, among other things, that "We don't think food manufacturers are responsible if people eat unhealthily... we don't think pubs are to blame whether people drink or drink.” smoke. We will seek voluntary, non-statutory solutions to public health problems” (Jones, 2005). The authorities of the aforementioned conservative party decided that its deputies had complete freedom of decision in the matter. It was supposed to put some kind of pressure on the ruling Labor Party, which for a long time was unable to establish a united position, despite previous policy statements. The key moment in this situation was that the opposition decided to give its members the power to have a free vote on the ban. This happened at a time when the winning government was very worried about not being able to get enough votes from its deputies. The Prime Minister said he did not consider the smoking ban to be a smoking ban, even though it was a clearly defined election pledge, as important as other controversial issues he had to deal with at the time. It also paved the way for free voting by the ruling party. The problem for supporters of a total ban at the time was how to gain a large enough majority in the House of Commons to resist pressure from the House of Lords. On February 14, 2006, supporters of the ban won the first vote. Many MPs who were initially against the total ban voted by a majority - 200 people - for the introduction of completely smoke-free zones in public places and workplaces. The Lords, despite Lord Tebbit's resistance, voted like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Therefore, finally, in December 2006, the government announced that the smoking ban in England would come into force on 1 July 2007. The legal changes presented met with some social resistance. An initiative called"Freedom of Choice" has launched a campaign for a review of the smoking ban in the workplace. Its officials said the 1998 Human Rights Act had been violated because it did not respect the privacy rights of people wanting to smoke in public places. Supporters of the regulation countered that smokers' right to smoke would expire as soon as they negatively affected other people around them. Left and right ideology In relation to the ban, the Conservative Party did not recognize its legitimacy. The party supported the search for non-statutory methods to improve the health of society. This clearly shows a difference between the right-wing Conservative Party and the left-wing Labor Party, which was in favor of the ban. There is clearly a general difference in the approach to the smoking ban compared to the political option. In my opinion, however, the issue of introducing a smoking ban should be considered above political divisions. To understand the issue of the ban we need to go back many years, where we can observe the trend that later influenced the imposition of the ban. Special attentionIt should be taken into account that individual enterprises began to implement smoking bans regardless of government decisions. It can therefore be said that it was public opinion that exerted the pressure which directly resulted in the introduction of the ban. A very important aspect is the fact that both members of the opposition and the ruling party were given the free choice to accept or reject the proposed legal act. The vote of the deputies was therefore a vote of public opinion rather than of members of political parties. Of course they voted for the parties they represented, but they had full freedom to make their own decisions. The deputies voted like normal citizens, according to their conscience and opinion on the issue of smoking, and not according to a pre-established party decision. In my opinion, viewing the ban from the point of view of the left or the right is fundamentally wrong. The activities carried out by the public, by entrepreneurs who manage pubs or meeting places, have in some way forced the introduction of a ban. In my opinion, if the Conservative Party or any other right-wing party had been in power, the situation would have taken the same course, despite the fact that conservative parties are not in the habit of interfering in this matter, fully aware that the Smoking culture is deeply rooted in society. Right-wing ideology is characterized by a more traditional approach to many issues, such as a culture in which smoking is an important element, as well as a skeptical attitude towards change. The total ban on smoking in public places is undoubtedly one such change. Interventionism in this area is more characterized by a left-wing ideology, which is more protective and, even at the cost of taking away some freedom from society, tries to take care of its health and physical condition. The hybrid policy proposed by the Labor Party in this area has not been welcomed by individual sectors and this is not surprising. No details have been provided on which companies and to what extent customers will be able to smoke tobacco products and from the point of view of entrepreneurs this is a very important aspect for obtaining potential profits. It can be said that the decision was made by society, and although it should be the norm in democratic societies, it was not so clearly visible in any other act. Summary In concluding these considerations, it is first necessary to evaluate the effect of the measures introduced changes. Before.