New smoking regulations

I have read with particular interest the letter sent by the MHRA (The Sunday Times, February 29). I must of course disagree with many of the conclusions of this letter, although I can understand the reasons for its inferences.

First of all, where is it concluded that smoking in public places is not a serious threat to public health, and the protection of public health has a superior consideration to all other economic and legal parameters?

Secondly, I seriously doubt whether the no-smoking regulations would have any effect on incoming tourists. If anything, it would have a positive effect, being well-acquainted with smoking behaviour in several European states.

What it does effect is the behaviour pattern of commercial establishment owners and smokers, which is what the regulations are trying to modify. It takes an effort to change behaviour, but it is essential for the greatest common good. After all, since cigarette smoke does not confine itself to one area, the regulations could need tightening up if anything.

Thirdly, it is not correct to state that legally establishments and smokers have a carte blanche to disregard the rights of non-smokers. There are several European conventions which we have signed or are due to sign which promote the rights of non-smokers prima facie with respect to the rights of others. I shall list a few.

A. The European Convention on Human Rights.

1. Articles 1 and 2: The right to life. Medical science spends much time and effort in research. When it is established beyond doubt that smoking, both active and passive, destroys life significantly, we cannot then decide to ignore this evidence.

2. Article 5: The right to liberty and security vis-à-vis smokers, establishments and non-smokers.

3. Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association.

4. Article 17: The prohibition of abuse of rights.

B. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

This is to be incorporated in the preamble to the convention.

1. Articles 1 and 2: Human dignity and the right to life. Anybody who was not sure of the immediate effects of smoking on asthmatics and asthma-related conditions should ask to spend some time at the emergency and admitting department at St Luke's Hospital, not to mention the morgue.

2. Article 3: Right to the physical and mental integrity of the person. That includes non-smokers and people unable to tolerate smoke in unclosed spaces.

3. Article 6: The right to liberty and security.

4. Article 12: Freedom of assembly and association.

5. Article 15: Freedom to choose an occupation.

6. Article 20: Equality before the law - both to smokers and non-smokers!

Article 21: Non-discrimination in this case to asthmatics, persons with cardiac, vascular and pulmonary diseases in this case on grounds of disability and genetic inheritance.

Article 24: The rights of the child and their well-being. Children frequently go to restaurants and weddings too!

Article 25: The rights of the elderly. They too have a right to a social and cultural life notwithstanding age-related diseases sensitive to smoke.

Article 26: The rights of integration of persons with disability. As with Article 25, these rights should be respected.

C. The Bio-ethics Convention of the Council of Europe.

Government has signalled its intention to sign this most important convention of Oviedo of the CoE.

Article 2: The primacy of the human being over the sole interest of society or science.

Article 11: Non-discrimination against a person on grounds of his/her genetic heritage. Asthma, which in Malta and the Mediterranean area is very high, about 25 per cent, is mediated by multiple genes and environmental conditions.

Article 23: Appropriate judicial protection against infringements of rights.

Article 24: Compensation for undue damage - Aha! Not that it needs to be prescribed by law.

Article 26: Non-restrictions on the articles of the convention, except in the case of a threat to public health among others, underlining the importance of public health criteria.

All this, of course, does not allude to our obligations under other international laws, such at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Helsinki Declaration of Fundamental Freedoms.

I strongly believe that one should now take things seriously and face up to the necessary changes with aplomb. After all, this is in the interests of the establishments themselves. Their patrons can only increase, rather than decrease. Smokers will still attend their premises and will be joined by non-smokers!