Evaluation of Smoking Ban-2007 in

Enclosed public areas in UK

Student ID:

1|Page
Contents
1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background to the topic....................................................................................................2

1.2 History of the policy.........................................................................................................2

1.3 Impact of the policy on social, cultural, economic and political environment.................3

1.4 Aims and objectives of the policy.....................................................................................4

1.5 Interventions embraced relating to the policy...................................................................5

1.6 Reaction of stakeholders to the policy..............................................................................5

2.0 Policy evaluation...............................................................................................................6

3.0 Conclusion............................................................................................................................7

4.0 References.............................................................................................................................7

2|Page
1.0 Introduction
Policy can be described as a series of general rule of principles to follow for a group of
individuals or even a nation and it has a huge significance in building sustainable environment
that would be suitable for most people living within the region (Anyanwu ET all, 2020). The
study will explore a policy embraced in UK in 2007 which was a result of the health act in
previous year defined as smoking ban. The report will contain a brief discussion on the
background, history, impact, aims and objectives of the policy and finally the author will
evaluate the policy based on findings of positive and negative impacts on citizens and businesses
due to smoking ban in enclosed areas of UK. The author will also attempt to demonstrate
different reactions and interventions related to the policy and by the stakeholders and what
changes were the policy able to make and how it has worked out.

1.1 Background to the topic

Policy can be described as guidelines to be followed to reach certain expectations or outcomes
and if the policy is related to individual or national health then it is considered as health policy.
The primary reason behind smoking ban in UK is definitely because of rising of passive smoking
in public enclosed areas. Passive smoking occurs when a person is not smoking himself/herself
but in the presence of an active smoker and meanwhile taking those poisonous vapors inside
lungs that contains nicotine and other chemicals (Beard ET all, 2020). This may cause harm to
those that are not even involved with smoking which is why it has become a national concern
and sooner or later this was meant to happen. Compared to a decade ago when pubs and clubs
were full of ashtrays and dense fog from smoking vapors these public places required a change
because many non-smokers also visit them and the law has changed these scenarios. This is the
law that has been described as the most significant piece of public health legislation for the last
half a century. Maybe a bit late but people had finally realized that smoking in public had to be
banned for the sake of people with healthy lungs and even children. Bringing this change was not
easy but smoking ban in public places in UK has come gradually and strongly.

1.2 History of the policy

Being one of the most significant policies in the last few decades on public health it had to go
through some tough times because not all people agreed on it and there were even protests to
prevent the policy from being legislated. The idea mainly rose when in 2004, a report was

3|Page
published by Department of Health in UK titled as “Choosing health: Making healthy choices
easier” where it was stated that citizens were needed to be rescued from secondhand smoke.
People even had data to support their claim because two years before in 2002 International
agency that research on cancer which organization also belongs to World health organization or
WHO provided data and probability of having lungs issues due to passive smoking and they even
found out people who were victims of passive smoking (Darzi ET all, 2015). The biggest
influencer to bring this law in practice was definitely the health act in 2006 because that is when
parts of the UK started to form this law and finally in July 2007 the ban took effect throughout
UK. Evidence on the fact that passive smoking is causing more people to have lungs related
issues without smoking and doctors suggesting that the cause of it is passive smoking, more
citizens were supporting smoking ban in enclosed public areas. The policy is considered to be
one of the best decisions for national health and it has been possible due to collaboration of
ordinary citizens and their support.

1.3 Impact of the policy on social, cultural, economic and political environment
The smoking ban policy in UK is a huge step because public were trying to enforce this
legislation for quite a long period of time and when it was legislated many aspects of the country
were impacted by it and here it is divided into four sectors to provide a transparent idea.

Social impact

The biggest social impact due to this policy is definitely huge decrement in teen smoking
because teens used to buy cigarettes from vending machines and the legal age of smoking before
2007 was 16 years which was increased while legislating smoking ban policy and now buying
cigarettes is illegal if you are under 18 (Kusel ET all, 2013). The places that were not suitable for
kids due to excessive smoking is now available for all. Social perspectives have also changed
along with chain smokers and less people are being hospitalized due to lungs issues because
many people have quitted smoking because of the ban.

Cultural impact

Many cultures and religions do not support smoking and according to them a holy place should
not contain smokes with nicotine. Most religions like Christianity, Muslim, Buddhists and others
take stand against smoking even if the holy books of these religions were written before smoking

4|Page
became a complication. So, the policy was highly supported by active practitioners of these
religions and other cultures that take smoking as unholy.

Economic impact

Smoking bans surely had an impact on bars and pubs because they had a large net sale from
cigarettes and even some of the small business companies were also affected by the policy. As
their marginal profit decreased so was the smoking industry because many people quitted
smoking due to the policy (Pryce, 2019). So, it had an impact on economy not in huge amount
but it did have a negative impact on the economy.

Impact on political environment

As political leaders are always on the side of what citizens require, they surely agreed to the
terms and conditions of smoking ban and again they understood the power of ordinary people
because this is a time of democracy. So, impact on political environment was positive and
definite.

1.4 Aims and objectives of the policy

Aim can be narrated as the ultimate goal or destination that a person or a group of individuals
cherish to achieve and on the other hand objectives are more like short term goals that sums up
corresponding to the aims. Aims and objectives of smoking was quite clear and to the point
because people were comprehending the negative sides of public and passive smoking. The
primary aim of the ban was to ascertain an environment which was suitable for people of any age
that smoke or do not smoke and non-smoking people would not suffer in any places of their
choice (Song ET all, 2020). This was the ultimate goal which has almost been achieved and
people are working towards fulfilling it.

Smoking ban in public enclosed areas had many small objectives that would be beneficial chiefly
for young teens as the minimum age to buy a cigarette was increased to 18 which was 16 before
and small children because statistics demonstrated that a decrease was encountered in teen
smoking which was approximately 7.3% less compared to before the ban. There was even
decrement of smokers in adults as in 2006 almost 22% of the adults were regular or chain
smoker but in 2020 it became 14.1 % which is actually appreciable (McNeill ET all, 2019).
There was even a decrease in sales of cigarettes after three months of the ban which was 6.3%

5|Page
decrease in volume. Another objective of the policy was to decrement the number of hospitalized
citizens due to lung cancer or other diseases caused by smoking and following the ban there was
a decrease where 1200 less citizens were hospitalized in the next year due to smoking. Another
objective was to reduce air pollution due to smoking in public areas and the ban was also
successful at it as in bars and pubs the air pollution was decreased by approximately 93% which
was a huge success. So, aims and objectives of the policy has been transparent ever since it was
legislated and it has been acquiring them effectively.

1.5 Interventions embraced relating to the policy

The policy was not suitable for each group of people as many people are addicted to smoking
and controlling smoking in public places was quite a challenge for them. So different
interventions were embraced by service providers, commissioners and NHS such as promoting e-
cigarette and anti-smoking campaigns which has been quite successful. NHS even started
advertising in social platforms to prohibit people from breaking the law and smoking in enclosed
public places and there were even banners and posters that would promote the policy (Paton,
2017). Government organizations started working with local and national leaders and celebs to
promote the policy and let people know how it can be beneficial for general people. There has
been enough discussions and arguments on the fact that the policy should be embedded with
other national laws and not practicing the policy should be considered as a serious crime and
there will be consequences to this. So, it can be said finally that other interventions like
promoting the idea of a smoke free environment and public places for kids and even non
smoking adults was embraced by NHS, commissioners and other service providers which
resulted into influencing people to expand the policy furthermore for the sake of everyday
people.

1.6 Reaction of stakeholders to the policy

A policy is embraced keeping in mind the impact of it on the surrounding people that is its
stakeholders and smoking ban definitely had an impact on stakeholders because they were the
ones facing issues due to public smoking. The impact was on health, attitude and behavior of the
stakeholders and all of them were positive which is why reaction of stakeholders were also
positive. Some stakeholders such as small business owners and pubs or bars owners did not agree
with the smoke free legislation as it had a negative impact on their business because many people

6|Page
used to visit these places to have a beer and smoke but after 2007 it was illegal to smoke in these
areas and even many people quitted smoking because they could not smoke anytime anywhere
they wanted which is why these business industries encountered losses and even tobacco
companies had a decrement in profit (Hopkinson, 2020). It clearly demonstrates that the
legislation was on in favor for everyone.

Some of the entrepreneurs who were in the bars and club industry tried to protest against the
policy and claimed to turn of the legislation in only bars, pubs and clubs but their claim was not
accepted because after the ban people were onto expanding it in other sections like smoking
outside hospitals and in the presence of children (Hunt ET all, 2018). But the first one has faced
some critiques as it is compared to an inhumane act because relatives of a patient many need to
smoke to get some relief from pressure. But smoking may will be banned in indoors in the
presence of children in future because children are most vulnerable to passive or secondhand
smoking. So, the basic reaction to the policy was divided into two groups where one of them
suggested to expand the smoke free legislation and the other one suggested to minimize the areas
of the ban so that some businesses would not have to go through losses and people visiting those
areas will also be happy.

2.0 Policy evaluation

Policies are legislated in order to bring order from chaos and justice from crimes and a policy is
evaluated simply by who are affected by it and how they are affected. To evaluate the smoke free
legislation policy of 2007 the author needs to consider health, attitude and behavioral changes
among its stakeholders and thus it can be concluded whether the policy is successful or not.

Changes in health

This has to be the biggest change due to the policy because after the year of enforcing the law
almost 1200 less people were hospitalized and people were already quitting smoking and mostly
teens did not have any legal way to buy cigarettes. People working in bars and clubs admitted
that they had less respiratory issues and compared to before 2006 when their eyes used to be red
all the time due to these smokes were normal after the policy was reinforced (Jones ET all,
2015). The number of patients in lung cancer and cardiovascular disease were decremented and
even cases of sudden heart attacks and heart failures were decreased. So, changes in health were

7|Page
significantly higher than any other changes due to the policy and it was all positive which
demonstrates the positive impact it had on its stakeholders.

Changes in behavior and attitudes

The chief motto of the policy was to improve national health but eventually it was observed that
some personal had encountered changes in behavior too. This impact even includes social and
cultural perspectives and excluding some of the individuals or groups most of the people reacted
or acted same before and after the legislation was in practice. But there was a change in groups
that used to get together to smoke and gossip as they started socializing more at homes than other
public places (Robson ET all, 2019). Some of these groups were even annihilated as they started
gathering less and hence influenced some of them to quit smoking. After the policy was in
practice non-smoking people could easily gossip in bars and pubs for hours as the environment
was not at all smoky and they even did not have any health risk. So, changes in behavior and
attitude were encountered but most of which were positive which is a good side of the policy.

Basically, the policy changed these two aspects the most and it had been for the better good of
society and its people. Which makes the evaluation of the policy easier for the author and it can
be concluded without a doubt that the policy was inevitable and had collaborated in building a
better society with smoke-free public places across the country.

3.0 Conclusion
The policy discussed in the study is the smoking ban which was legislated in 2007 in UK and the
law was beneficial to the extent that people were living a healthier and reasonable life having
stayed away from passive or secondhand smoking and able to take kids or children to any place
they want. There is even less dense fog from smoking in clubs and pubs which makes it easier to
spend more time there for non-smokers and even restaurants are smoke free zones and all of this
together has decremented the number of people affected by smoking and less hospitalization.
There is even reduction in teen smokers and even adult smokers as many adults used to smoke in
groups in clubs and bars. The policy is without a doubt a tremendous success and it collaborated
in improving national health and independence of citizens which is why the policy was certainly
cheered and appraised by the society and different cultures.

8|Page
4.0 References
Anyanwu, P.E., Craig, P., Katikireddi, S.V. and Green, M.J., 2020. Impact of UK tobacco
control policies on inequalities in youth smoking uptake: a natural experiment study. Nicotine
and Tobacco Research, 22(11), pp.1973-1980.

Beard, E., Jackson, S.E., West, R., Kuipers, M.A. and Brown, J., 2020. Trends in attempts to quit
smoking in England since 2007: A time series analysis of a range of population-level
influences. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 22(9), pp.1476-1483.

Darzi, A., Keown, O.P. and Chapman, S., 2015. Is a smoking ban in UK parks and outdoor
spaces a good idea?. Bmj, 350.

Hopkinson, N.S., 2020. The path to a smoke-free England by 2030.

Hunt, D., Knuchel-Takano, A., Jaccard, A., Bhimjiyani, A., Retat, L., Selvarajah, C., Brown, K.,
Webber, L.L. and Brown, M., 2018. Modelling the implications of reducing smoking prevalence:
the public health and economic benefits of achieving a ‘tobacco-free’UK. Tobacco
control, 27(2), pp.129-135.

Jones, A.M., Laporte, A., Rice, N. and Zucchelli, E., 2015. Do public smoking bans have an
impact on active smoking? Evidence from the UK. Health economics, 24(2), pp.175-192.

Kusel, J., Timm, B. and Lockhart, I., 2013. The impact of smoking in the home on the health
outcomes of non-smoker occupants in the UK. Tobacco induced diseases, 11(1), pp.1-10.

McNeill, A., Brose, L.S., Calder, R., Bauld, L. and Robson, D., 2019. Vaping in England: an
evidence update February 2019. A report commissioned by Public Health England. London:
Public Health England.

Paton, N., 2017. Almost two million fewer smokers in UK since 2007 ban. Occupational Health
& Wellbeing, 69(9), p.7.

Pryce, R., 2019. The effect of the United Kingdom smoking ban on alcohol spending: evidence
from the living costs and food survey. Health Policy, 123(10), pp.936-940.

9|Page
Robson, M., Doran, T. and Cookson, R., 2019. Estimating and decomposing conditional average
treatment effects: the smoking ban in England (No. 19/20). HEDG, c/o Department of
Economics, University of York.

Song, F., Elwell-Sutton, T. and Naughton, F., 2020. Impact of the NHS stop smoking services on
smoking prevalence in England: a simulation modelling evaluation. Tobacco control, 29(2),
pp.200-206.

10 | P a g e