A case study of policy making in Malta : the smoking ban

Abstract

During 2003, debates began on whether or not to introduce amendments to the existent law. This meant that whereas initially, smoking was only restricted in specific areas, with the new amendments, smoking would be restricted in any public place. The need for legislation to ban smoking in public places became a must since it did not suffice to simply ask people not to smoke out of courtesy and requests not to smoke in public places were not binding. Legislation was the only way for implementation. Malta was the second European country to have taken the bold step to introduce such regulations. Maltese non-smokers view smoking as being anti-social, and agreed with the policy to ban smoking in public places, while smokers feel that they are discriminated. The whole argument in favour of this policy was that it is not correct to force non smokers to breathe contaminated air, together with the fact that a non-smoker affects no one, but a single smoker in an enclosed space affects everyone and imposes their reckless wishes on all regardless of whether those surrounding are smokers or not. The majority of those who were hesitant regarding this policy were owners of ente1tainment establishments who thought they will be out of business once smokers are not permitted to smoke in their site. As Michael LeBoeuf stated, "Every company's greatest assets are its customers, because without customers there is no company." Others stated that by banning smoking in public places, people would probably smoke fewer cigarettes, and therefore less tax revenue would be collected by Government.