4 reasons why open-air

restaurants should be made

non-smoking zones
Dr Murallitharan M
-
September 13, 2018 3:10 PM

Many of us who are in tobacco control groups in Malaysia have been holding
our breaths in anticipation this past week following the deputy health
minister’s announcement that the ministry would push towards gazetting
more areas as non-smoking zones, especially open-air restaurants.

Why are we not having a full-blown celebration, one might ask? After all,
increasing non-smoking areas is something that tobacco control groups have
been recommending that the government carry out for years.

This is because if you read between the lines, it seems that the health
ministry may be worried about the backlash from implementing this move.
Over the past few days, we have seen some quarters criticising it, including
members of the mainstream media. One such member tweeted: “Banning
smoking at open-air eateries is such a fascist move. If people want smoke-
free environments, eat inside. Otherwise, where can smokers go? Open
spaces belong to smokers, too.”

There are four main arguments making the rounds on mainstream and social
media on why open-air restaurants should not be designated as non-smoking
zones. I will point them out and illustrate why they do not hold any water.

The first argument is the one made above, which is about how smokers
should also have the right to smoke, and that we are depriving them of this
right. The fact the people continue to use the “right of smokers” argument
shows our lack of success in “de-normalising” smoking among Malaysians.
We continue to “romanticise” it, associating it with “freedom” – indeed, one
of the arguments often touted is how “smokers also have the right to
smoke”.

What many people fail to realise is that smoking is an individual right. No one
argues this point. No one has called for an open ban on tobacco. Feel free to
read and understand the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention
on Tobacco Control, the global master plan for tobacco control efforts.

It is important to note that gazetting an open-air restaurant as a non-

smoking area doesn’t mean that an individual is being deprived of his or her
right to smoke. It just means that they are being regulated on where they
can and cannot smoke. This is an important distinction. A similar train of
thought occupies laws on public nudity, for example, regulating where you
can and cannot appear without clothes. Whether you choose to comply, of
course, is your own choice.

More importantly, consider also the rights of the nearly 80% of Malaysians
who do not smoke. They have the right not to be exposed to tobacco smoke.
They have the right not to get an increased risk of having cancer and all
other related diseases that are caused by tobacco exposure and through no
fault of their own. In my mind, and I am sure to most of us in our right
minds, the right to health of all Malaysians is the most important right.
Consider these numbers: 209,000 people voted to make open-air eateries
non-smoking zones versus 19,000 who voted against it in a recent online poll
by the health ministry.

The second main argument made by those who oppose gazetting open-air
restaurants as non-smoking areas is that smoking is something that the
government has no business regulating. If you’re going to regulate smoking,
the argument goes, you should also regulate junk food, fast food, and a
whole lot of other issues that are detrimental to health. People should be
allowed to make their own choices, and if that choice is a bad one, well too
bad for them.
While there may be a grain of truth to this line of argument, there is a far
bigger point to be made which negates this entire train of thought.
Consuming fast food, junk food and many other poor health choices made by
Malaysians are individual ones. They affect you and you alone. Becoming
obese from the overconsumption of calories is something done by an
individual which affects only the individual. No one ties you to a chair and
tortures you by feeding you fast food until you pop.

Smoking, on the other hand, doesn’t just affect a single person. It affects
anyone and everyone exposed. Data shows that second-hand smoke causes
close to 900,000 deaths a year globally – this is without even considering the
impact of third-hand smoke. This is extremely unfair to those affected
because it is not a choice they make. They fall ill and die through no fault of
their own! So, similar to regulations to prevent car accidents on the road,
regulations on smoking are about protecting non-smokers from exposure to
something that they have no control over. If a government has no business
introducing regulations for the safety of its people, why do we even have
one?

The third most used argument against regulations on stopping smoking in

open-air restaurants is: why don’t you just tell the person next to you to stop
smoking? Or, restaurants should enforce their own no-smoking policy instead
of the government doing so. More than one person has come up to me and
said, “If you don’t like someone smoking next to you in a public place, tell
the person to stop.” Well, easier said than done, especially when you are
only offering this as an empty excuse. I have tried, and continue to try
almost every day. However, I have been shouted at and threatened with
physical abuse. On two occasions, friends and family members sitting with
me were threatened as well. The truth is, without a legal framework that de-
normalises smoking in open-air spaces, there is little that social enforcement
can achieve.

The final argument used against gazetting open-air spaces as non-smoking

areas is, “If you don’t like it, don’t sit there. Go sit in air-conditioned
restaurants where people cannot smoke.”
Unfortunately, this is an elitist view. For those who are can afford to be able
to eat in air-conditioned, smoke-free restaurants all the time, I am happy
that you are well off enough to make that choice. I consider myself a
working-class Malaysian. Most days, I eat two meals at a non-air-
conditioned, open-air restaurant – in other words, at mamaks. That is what I
can afford. This holds true for many Malaysians as well. Does the average
Malaysian at the mamak not have a right to health? Or is it only the
“privileged” members of society sitting in air-conditioned eateries who have a
right to health by non-exposure to smoking?

Dr Murallitharan M is a public health physician and director of the National

Cancer Society of Malaysia.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily
reflect those of FMT.