Smoking ban?

Question

Is it a breach of a persons human rights to be locked up in a no smoking police cell within a police station where smoking is banned anywhere on the premises?

Also, how about a person is admitted into an NHS hospital where smoking is banned anywhere on the grounds (inside and out)?

Surley these are cases of people being forced to go 'cold turkey'?

(We all know the health issues. This is just an interesting point of law)

PLEASE READ THE QUESTION: It is only an interesting point of law and is for the UK. It is referring to the recent law suits won by people forced to go 'cold turkey' in prisons during the 80's. Does the same principle apply here?

PEOPLE!!! GIVE US A BREAK. This is a legal question nothing else. Not a debate on smoking for or against or if prisoners should have there hands cut off. LOL

screwkanga: Thanks for your answer.
I wonder if in legal terms nicotine addiction is any different to any other drug addiction?

For example: If the Police forced someone to have an interview or make a statement before being allowed a cigarette. I think it could be argued in court that the statement was made under duress.

Answer 1

It's an interesting issue certainly. What we're talking about here is, does refusing someone access to nicotine amount to "inhuman and degrading treament" under Article 3 of the European Convention on human Rights?

Firstly, my personal opinion is that human rights should not attach to a choice, i.e. you shouldn't be able to claim protection for a habit that you chose to take up. It is not a basic human right to be able to smoke, or for that matter, drink or take drugs.

Secondly, I'm not sure that being asked to go without a cigarette could really be "inhuman and degrading treatment" in the same way that heroin withdrawal can be. It's certainly uncomfortable, but "inhuman and degrading" is a higher threshold than merely uncomfortable.

Thirdly, technically the prisoners forced to go cold turkey in jail didn't "win" their case because they didn't get to court - the government settled. I don't agree with the decision to pay out-of court settlements to them, but I do understand why they did it - an out of court settlement sets no precedent. Had the government run it to trial all it would have taken was one particularly woolly lefty-liberal judge and we would have had the principle that prisoners are entitled to drugs in prison enshrined in English law. That was obviously too great a risk for them to take.

Answer 2

"Smoke free" are the buzz words for legislators and other lawmakers, most of whom, I suspect, have never smoked.
Note: there have been no such laws enacted that might infringe on their two martini lunches - and no matching increases in the alcohol taxes, either.

In the state that I live in, smokers have literally been under attack for about 8 years now. We have a $2.00 a pack state tax, laws against smoking in any place of employment, restaurants, bars, and any public place - including outdoor sports arenas. The latest proposal hopes to ban smoking in any vehicle with a child on board. None of these laws have ever been enacted through a referendum or voted into law by the people - they have all been rammed through the legislature by a special interest group, a coalition for a smoke free state.
As with most things that the bureaucracy gets involved in, it has gone way beyond the issue of second hand smoke in enclosed areas and the rights of non-smokers.
So far, attempts to circumvent these laws have resulted in prosecution and hefty fines.
And, I agree, we all are aware of the alleged health concerns, but, as you point out in your question - it is indeed an interesting debate in the point of law vs individual rights.

Answer 3

As much as smoking is unhealthy. It's no ones place to ban smoking. The only exception would be like dont smoke next to the childrens playground or inside a building.

Answer 4

you are right, especially with the latest news that junkies in prison have been awarded and out of court settlement for being denied drugs in prison.
Why should it be any different for smokers? Nicotine is, after all an addictive drug too.

Answer 5

I think that going cold turkey due to misuse of heroin/crack etc is slightly different to cigarettes...going back to the prisoners being compensated through a breach of their human rights to recieve the correct detox medication, that is silly what about prisoners who are detoxing from alcohol we'll be getting a budwieser tap in the wing office next i reckon!!!!

Answer 6

the thing is with this you are sort of asking a two pronged question...........basically in the UK human rights IMO ONLY count when you are a bloody hindu or what ever........god forbid the good old Brit actually gets up in arms............and as for banning it I read with HORROR that it is seriously being introduced into the UK for pubs and clubs...........I was like WTF it will be like here in the USA a HUGE crowd outside having a ciggy and trawling back into the club..............or course I am in Florida but hopefully if I puff away long enough I shall be able to pollute some California air where I am told you can NOT even smoke in your OWN car in certain areas..............
As for the no smoking in the hospitals and grounds what about all the nurses / docs that smoke EVERY doc bash I went to pretty much every one of them smoked................

YES I know smoking is not good for you etc etc etc BUT as I pay my health insurance over here in the USA then I would say its pretty much up to me what I do..........

Answer 7

Proposed ban is typical of present UK government "Do as I say, not as I do" & a pathetic bid to win votes. Who will vote in favour when other taxes increase to cover lost revenue if great numbers reduce or stop smoking? Freedom of choice? not considered by present regime.

Answer 8

People who are in jail in the first place have probably injured others' rights: violence, drunk driving, thievery, etc. You should be glad to not get their hands cut off like in Iran.

Hospitals are responsible for providing healthy, sterile environments for people to recover return to their homes and families in the quickest time possible. Smoking rights don't quite fit into that agenda.

On a personal note, smoking prohibitions are a little over the top.

Answer 9

I don't see how it would infringe on anyone's rights. For someone who is addicted to nicotine, withdrawal might certainly be uncomfortable but it is not, to my knowledge, harmful or fatal, as is the case with alcohol addiction.

If you reverse the scenario -- where a non-smoker is subjected to cigarette smoke with no chance of escape -- now THAT'S got to be a violation of rights.

Answer 10

I think it should be illegal for anyone to smoke in any type of building, and people should only be allowed to smoke on there own premises, not out in public, I hate it when i go to a cafe to lunch and sit outside to enjoy the sun shine and I get some smoker sit near me and I have to breath in the smoke, I choose not to smoke because I want to live life and be healthy as long as I can but when I get someone sit next to me and smoke and I breath it in then that is a breach of my human rights, my right to live is being jeopardized because of someone eles addiction. and I should not have to change my lifestyle just to aviod coming in contact with a smoker.