Q What do you think of the smoking ban? As a non-smoker, I welcome this policy. People need not smell the disgusting second-hand smoke anymore after the smoking ban. It will certainly be good for our health. However, I doubt if the law can be easily enforced. Although it is a disgusting habit and smokers always make a negative impression on non-smokers, they are citizens of Hong Kong; they are taxpayers. One-sixth of Hongkongers smoke. Once the law is enforced, they would be deprived of their privilege to smoke. Now smoking is forbidden in public areas, they will not spend so much time in public places, such as restaurants and cinemas. They will stay at home instead. As a result, the businesses' turnover will greatly decrease. So prohibiting smoking in public spots not only affects smokers' private interests but will also have a negative impact on the economy. It will take time for smokers to adapt to this new law. Katie Leung, Mei Foo Sun Chuen I could finally bring my child to enjoy breakfast in a traditional Chinese restaurant this morning. Brian Leung, San Po Kong The anti-smoking campaigners are just too much. Our government has been promoting 'equal opportunity' and 'anti-discrimination', but where are the rights and opportunities of smokers? The anti-smoking advertisements are blatantly degrading smokers. This is a typical example of double standards in our society. While it's totally correct to remind people to be health-conscious, the anti-smoking campaigners have been using the wrong methods. Many anti-smoking campaigns and advertisements are trying to portray smokers as persona non grata. Their aim is clear enough: they want smokers to be ostracised by the public - all because they claim 'second-hand smoking could kill'. To preserve equal opportunity, there should be restaurants and bars for smokers. The government should issue two types of licence, perhaps, charging different fees. In short, let the market decide. Since smoking kills so many people, directly or indirectly every year, perhaps it's worse than drugs, so why not ban sales of tobacco completely? Alex Kwok, Mid-Levels It has taken years of delays and bickering in the Legislative Council to decide to act to save the lives of nicotine addicts and associated health-care costs, and innocent people being harmed or killed by their poisonous smoke - those who earn their livings in premises where smokers are allowed to light up. The Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Bill should be renamed the Smoking (Selective Public Health) Watered Down Bill. Yesterday, I went to a pub in Tai Wai that was merrily sporting its exemption granted by the Department of Selective Health. As of January 1, smoking will be allowed there for the next two years, and the reason is simple - the exemption allows smoking as long as people under the age of 18 are banned from the premises and the pub's major income source is the beverages, not food. From January 1, employees and the public in all indoor workplaces, restaurants, bars open to all age groups, beaches, stadiums, and major areas of parks and playgrounds are protected under the law. The licensees of bars, nightclubs and mahjong parlours open only to adults 18 and over, have been allowed to apply for and receive an exemption to the ban until 2009. The Department of Selective Health has so far approved 795 exemptions from the 990 applications received by the end of December. It is ridiculous that the department charged with the health of our society has been allowed to unilaterally grant these premises permission to continue to harm the health of staff in those premises when it is already an offence to employ staff in a harmful workplace. So Legco legislates, leaving deliberate loopholes and the Department of Selective Health panders to Tommy Cheung Yu-yan, the catering sector lawmaker, to gain voting support for the administration. Selective Health's hypocritical exemptions mean the government may be liable to be sued by workers and unions since second-hand smoke in workplaces is totally preventable by legislation. These workers have a legal right and the employers a duty of care by law to prevent a harmful work environment. The selective decision is unfair, unjust, inefficient and unworkable. The decision causes unfair business competition when Legco is studying laws to prevent the same. James Middleton, Pat Heung On other matters ... On behalf of Heritage Hong Kong, a not-for-profit organisation established to promote heritage conservation in the city, I welcome the report ('Heritage trust planned to protect historic sites', January 2) regarding government proposals to establish a heritage trust. This is an approach which Heritage Hong Kong has advocated for some time as we consider that an independent, non-governmental body is required, which can operate with speed and flexibility, and can play a pro-active role in the protection of the city's cultural, architectural, historic and social heritage. In particular, such a body should establish exactly what it is that the community values. Age is only one criteria and there needs to be a broader understanding of the meaning of 'culture' and 'heritage' to ensure that Star Ferry and Maritime Police Station type situations do not arise again in the future. Margaret Brooke, convenor, Heritage Hong Kong
