header-logo header-logo

19 June 2008 / Neil Allen
Issue: 7326 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Constitutional law , Mental health
printer mail-detail

A human right to smoke?

Has the government struck the right balance between the freedom of smokers and the welfare of non-smokers? Neil Allen reports

Our freedom to choose when and where to smoke is now regulated by the Health Act 2006 and its accompanying regulations which, broadly speaking, ban smoking in enclosed public places and work premises. Smoking in one's own home is not forbidden. Other types of accommodation, such as prisons, care homes and hospices, are similarly exempted from the prohibition. Hospitals are not, so patients must brave the weather if they wish to smoke. However, that is not an option for many patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The government originally intended to exempt designated smoking rooms in mental health units providing long-term residential accommodation. However, the public's response to its consultation opposed such a move. As a result, and unlike the position in Ireland and Scotland, reg 10(3) of the Smoke-free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007 merely provides a 12-month “sunset clause” to the ban. From 1 July

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll