Amy Raphael Labour MP Alex Cunningham has proposed a private member's bill to ban smoking in cars where children are present. The bill will be debated on Friday and, if passed, could mean a total ban on smoking in cars (which the British Medical Association has proposed). I am, I admit, ambivalent about a total ban. I believe, for the most part, in individual liberty and freedom to choose how you live your life. An adult can choose to get into a car with another adult who insists on smoking, but the simple and unavoidable truth is that a child doesn't have a choice.
A recent investigation by the BMA reveals substantial evidence that smoking in vehicles exposes passengers to 23 times more toxins than a smoke-filled pub. Children absorb more pollutants than adults. Obviously not everyone who smokes dies of a smoking-related illness, but plenty do. According to ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), smoking costs the NHS around £2.7bn a year for "treating diseases caused by smoking". Around one-third of all cancer deaths can be attributed to smoking. Children of parents who smoke are twice as likely to suffer from a serious respiratory infection as the children of non-smokers. So, if we agree that smoking is bad for you, why take the risk where kids are concerned? Why put a kid in a car and light up? Surely it's a form of child abuse?
Alexi Duggins All right, all right. This much I shall give you: pumping a kiddywink's little pink lungs full of smoke is probably child abuse. However, due to marvellous technological advances in the automobile industry, I understand that most vehicles now come with a built-in smoke deterrent. "Windows", some call them. And why should Mr Cunningham's bill not enforce the opening of all windows and sun roof of any car containing both a child and a lover of tobacco?
The truth is that this debate isn't really about protecting children, just as the initial smoking ban wasn't really about protecting bar workers. It's about taking another step towards outlawing smoking altogether. The possibility of achieving a smoke-free workplace while still allowing people to smoke in pubs – in Canadian pubs, for example, smokers have separate, well-ventilated rooms that staff do not enter – was not considered. Stony Stratford council has recently considered banning smoking outside. They say they want to protect people from secondhand smoke – surely a scientific nonsense – and litter. But are smokers really the worst kind of litterbugs? What about people who discard chewing gum recklessly? Oh, and while smoking might cost the NHS around £2.7bn a year, taxation on tobacco during 2010-11 raised £11.1 bn.
AR Have you ever driven on the motorway at 70mph with all the windows down? With a kid in the back seat? No, thought not. I'm curious to know if you smoke – or would theoretically smoke – in a car with a child in it? And how do you light a cigarette while driving at speed? And how do you stub it out safely? I can't see how this bill isn't protecting children. Are you suggesting that passive smoking does no harm and therefore it's fine? The medical evidence that secondhand smoke does damage to non-smokers seems pretty compelling to me. Put an asthmatic kid in a smoky car and see if they cough and splutter till removed from that car. I agree with you, however, on two fronts. I have no issue with well-ventilated smoking rooms. And the £80 fine for dropping cigarette butts is a little steep given the general lack of bins around. Oh, and is part of that £11.1bn donated to the NHS?
AD I couldn't tell you exactly which department of bean counters gets its fingers on that taxation revenue. However, the equation is simple: smokers contribute a net financial gain to the nation's coffers. And, yes, you got me: with the window suggestion, I was being flippant. Opening the windows is an unworkable policy. But I'd love to see some statistics on the number of people who happily usher their child into a vehicular tobacco bong. Are there really that many that we need a law for them? And do they act as they do because they are willing to injure their children? Or do they do so because they haven't properly considered the health risks? In which case, would an information campaign not do just as well?
And what are the policing implications of this ban? Without a far-reaching surveillance network that profiles the passengers of each individual car, the law is largely unenforceable. In which case, it's not fit for purpose. It's nothing more than legislation aimed at changing attitudes. But as it also curtails the liberty of solo vehicular smokers and places more demands on a police force already stretched by public sector cuts, it makes far less sense than an awareness campaign. It's using a jackhammer to crack a nut.
AR Finally we get to the heart of the argument: the right to choose to smoke in your own home and your own car. I had assumed that your first return shot would be the implications of a "nanny state". As I stated very clearly earlier, I am ambivalent about a total ban. I don't think a total ban will stop people from smoking, though it might encourage them to cut down. I don't care if someone wants to smoke in their own car but I do care about their momentary loss of concentration while lighting up and stubbing out.
Remember when people used to smoke on the tube, on the top of a bus, at the back of a plane? It all seems so anachronistic now. I imagine that in a decade or so we'll feel the same about smoking in all vehicles. Because I imagine that the BMA will get its way and that smoking will eventually be banned in cars. And, no doubt, on streets. And on all council property. And so on. A good thing? For those of us who don't smoke, a smoke-free world is an attractive one. But at what price? I can't help but think it may give the government the power to control the populace in ways we haven't even considered.
AD Well, you know how it is: you start throwing around the term "nanny state" and you're automatically bracketed with port-raddled gentleman's club denizens who yearn for the good old days of corporal punishment. But, yes, of course this is an argument about the right to choose to smoke – assuming you are not affecting any others. Taken in isolation, this bill is curious: a piece of nigh-on unenforceable law aimed at solving a problem that may or may not actually be particularly widespread. Of course I am not suggesting that smoking in front of children is acceptable: simply that proposing legislation is too heavy-handed a way to tackle the issue.
But to return to my initial argument, this bill is not an isolated piece of legislation. It sits alongside documentation intended to ban smoking in indoor public places, to ban cigarette vending machines and – granted, only at local council level – to ban it outdoors entirely. Each time, the arguments change. Sometimes protecting the health of others, sometimes preventing littering, sometimes stopping underage smoking. But always with the same result: making it harder and harder to smoke tobacco. As you say, if this trend continues, then eventually smoking on the street will be banned – presumably to stop littering. This would mark the moment at which a society supposedly based on mutual tolerance and respect decides it cares more about the condition of pavements than it does about people's civil liberties.
Smoking bans (or smoke-free laws) are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, that prohibittobacco smoking in workplaces and other public spaces. Legislation may also define smoking as more generally being the carrying or possessing of any lit tobacco product.
Smoking bans are enacted in an attempt to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and other diseases. Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with some legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.
In addition such laws may reduce health care costs, improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labour in the community thus protected, making that workforce more attractive for employers. In the US state of Indiana, the economic development agency included in its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth encouragement for cities and towns to adopt local smoking bans as a means of promoting job growth in communities.
Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards; cleanliness in places where food, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, or precision instruments and machinery are produced; decreased legal liability; potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs; reduced quantities of litter; healthier environments; and giving smokers incentive to quit.
The World Health Organization considers smoking bans to have an influence to reduce demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking bans are viewed by public health experts as an important element in reducing smoking rates and promoting positive health outcomes. When effectively implemented they are seen as an important element of policy to support behaviour change in favour of a healthy lifestyle.
Banning smoking in public places has helped to cut premature births by 10 percent, according to new research from the United States and Europe.
Main article: Passive smoking
Research has generated evidence that second-hand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung ailments such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma. Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%.
A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens on account of tobacco smoke as active smokers.Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium-210. Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in second-hand smoke than in mainstream smoke.
Scientific organisations confirming the effects of second-hand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Surgeon General of the United States, and the World Health Organization.
Restrictions upon smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only second-hand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline. The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans were instituted.
A 2004 study showed New Jersey bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighbouring New York City, which had already enacted its smoking ban.
Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees. For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking restrictions, tests showed decreased levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to going smoke-free).
Public Health Law Research
In 2009, the Public Health Law Research Program, a national program office of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, published an evidence brief summarising the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health. They stated that "There is strong evidence supporting smoking bans and restrictions as effective public health interventions aimed at decreasing exposure to secondhand smoke."
See also: List of smoking bans
One of the world's earliest smoking bans was a 1575 Roman Catholic Church regulation which forbade the use of tobacco in any church in Mexico. In 1604, King James I of England published an anti-smoking treatise, A Counterblaste to Tobacco, that had the effect of raising taxes on tobacco. The Ottoman Sultan Murad IV prohibited smoking in his empire in 1633 and had smokers executed. Pope Urban VII also prohibited smoking in the Church in 1590 followed by Urban VIII in 1624. Pope Urban VII threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose". The earliest citywide European smoking bans were enacted shortly thereafter. Such bans were enacted in Bavaria, Kursachsen, and certain parts of Austria in the late 17th century. Smoking was banned in Berlin in 1723, in Königsberg in 1742, and in Stettin in 1744. These bans were repealed in the revolutions of 1848. The first building in the world to ban smoking was the Old Government Building in Wellington, New Zealand in 1876. This was over concerns about the threat of fire, as it is the second largest wooden building in the world.
The first modern attempt at restricting smoking was imposed by the German government in every university, post office, military hospital, and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler. Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.
In the latter part of the 20th century, as research on the risks of second-hand tobacco smoke became public, the tobacco industry launched "courtesy awareness" campaigns. Fearing reduced sales, the industry created a media and legislative programme that focused upon "accommodation". Tolerance and courtesy were encouraged as a way to ease heightened tensions between smokers and those around them, while avoiding smoking bans. In the US, states were encouraged to pass laws providing separate smoking sections.
In 1975, the U.S. state of Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to restrict smoking in most public spaces. At first, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act. As of 1 October 2007, Minnesota enacted a ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars statewide, called the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.
The resort town of Aspen, Colorado, became the first city in the US to restrict smoking in restaurants, in 1985, though it allowed smoking in areas that were separately ventilated.
On 3 April 1987, the City of Beverly Hills, California, initiated an ordinance to restrict smoking in most restaurants, in retail stores and at public meetings. It exempted restaurants in hotels – City Council members reasoned that hotel restaurants catered to large numbers of visitors from abroad, where smoking is more acceptable than in the United States.
In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to restrict indoor smoking in bars as well as restaurants. However, the ban did not include workplaces but covered all other indoor public spaces  and its enforcement was somewhat limited.
In America, California's 1998 smoking ban encouraged other states such as New York to implement similar regulations. California's ban included a controversial restriction upon smoking in bars, extending the statewide ban enacted in 1994. As of April 2009 there were 37 states with some form of smoking ban. Some areas in California began banning smoking across whole cities, including every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California enacted park and beach smoking restrictions.
Since December 1993, in Peru, it is illegal to smoke in any public enclosed places and any public transport vehicles (according to Law 25357 issued on 27 November 1991 and its regulations issued on 25 November 1993 by decree D.S.983-93-PCM). There is also legislation restricting publicity, and it is also illegal (Law 26957 21 May 1998) to sell tobacco to minors or directly advertise tobacco within 500m of schools (Law 26849 9 Jul 1997).
On 3 December 2003, New Zealand passed legislation to progressively implement a smoking ban in schools, school grounds, and workplaces by December 2004. On 29 March 2004, the Republic of Ireland implemented a nationwide ban on smoking in all workplaces. In Norway, similar legislation was put into force on 1 June the same year.
The Scottish ban on smoking in public areas was introduced on 26 March 2006 by the then Minister for Health and Community Care, Andy Kerr. Smoking was banned in all public places in the whole of the United Kingdom in 2007, when England became the final region to have the legislation come into effect (the age limit for buying tobacco was also raised from 16 to 18 on 1 October 2007).
On 12 July 1999, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in India banned smoking in public places by declaring "public smoking as illegal first time in the history of whole world, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution." The Bench, headed by Dr. Justice K. Narayana Kurup, held that "tobacco smoking" in public places (in the form of cigarettes, cigars, beedies or otherwise) "falls within the mischief of the penal provisions relating to public nuisance as contained in the Indian Penal Code and also the definition of air pollution as contained in the statutes dealing with the protection and preservation of the environment, in particular, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution), Act 1981."
In 2003, India introduced a law that banned smoking in public places like restaurants, public transport or schools. The same law also made it illegal to advertise cigarettes or other tobacco products.
In 2010, Nepal was going to enact a new anti-smoking bill that will ban smoking in public places and outlaw all tobacco advertising to prevent young people from smoking.
On 31 May 2011 Venezuela introduced a restriction upon smoking in enclosed public and commercial spaces.
Smoking was first restricted in schools, hospitals, trains, buses and train stations in Turkey in 1996. In 2008, a more comprehensive smoking ban was implemented, covering all public indoor venues.
Smoking has been restricted at a French beach – the Plage Lumière in La Ciotat, France, became the first beach in Europe to restrict smoking, from August 2011, in an effort to encourage more tourists to visit the beach.
In 2012, smoking in Costa Rica became subject to some of the most restrictive regulations in the world, being banned from many outdoor recreational and educational areas as well as public buildings and vehicles.
Total tobacco bans
In 2004, Bhutan became the first country to completely outlaw the cultivation, harvesting, production, and sale of tobacco products. Penalties for violating the ban increased under the 'Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan 2010'. However, small allowances for personal possession are permitted as long as the possessor can prove that they have paid import duties. In January 2016, Turkmenistan president Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov reportedly banned all tobacco sales in the country. The Pitcairn Islands had previously banned the sale of cigarettes; however, it now permits sales from a government-run store. The Pacific island of Niue hopes to become the next country to prohibit the sale of tobacco. A proposal in Iceland would ban tobacco sales from shops, making it prescription-only and therefore dispensable only in pharmacies on doctor's orders. New Zealand hopes to achieve being tobacco-free by 2025 and Finland by 2040. In 2012, anti-smoking groups proposed a 'smoking licence' – if a smoker managed to quit and hand back their licence, they would get back any money they paid for it. Medical students in Singapore and the Australian state of Tasmania have proposed a 'tobacco free millennium generation initiative' by banning the sale of all tobacco products to anyone born in and after the year 2000.
In March 2012, Brazil became the world's first country to ban all flavored tobacco, including menthols. It also banned the majority of the estimated 600 additives used, permitting only eight. This regulation applies to domestic and internationally imported cigarettes. Tobacco manufacturers had 18 months to remove the non-compliant cigarettes, 24 months to remove the other forms of non-compliant tobacco.
In several parts of the world, tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting events is prohibited. The ban upon tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the European Union in 2005 prompted Formula One Management to look for venues that permit display of the livery of tobacco sponsors, and led to some of the races on the calendar being cancelled in favor of more 'tobacco-friendly' markets. As of 2007, only one Formula One team, Scuderia Ferrari, received sponsorship from a tobacco company. Marlboro branding appeared on its cars in three races; Bahrain, Monaco and China, as neither restricts tobacco advertising. Advertising bill-boards for tobacco are still in use in Germany, while all other EU members have fobidden them.
MotoGP team Ducati Marlboro received sponsorship from Marlboro, its branding appearing at races in Qatar and China. On 1 July 2009 Ireland prohibited the advertising and display of tobacco products in all retail outlets.
A 2007 Gallup poll found that 54% of Americans favoured completely smoke-free restaurants, 34% favoured completely smoke-free hotel rooms, and 29% favoured completely smoke-free bars.
Another Gallup poll, of over 26,500 Europeans, conducted in December 2008, found that "a majority of EU citizens support smoking bans in public places, such as offices, restaurants and bars." The poll further found that "support for workplace smoking restrictions is slightly higher than support for such restrictions in restaurants (84% vs. 79%). Two-thirds support smoke-free bars, pubs and clubs." The support is highest in countries which have implemented clear smoking bans: "Citizens in Italy are the most prone to accept smoking restrictions in bars, pubs and clubs (93% – 87% "totally in favour"). Sweden and Ireland join Italy at the higher end of the scale with approximately 80% of respondents supporting smoke-free bars, pubs and clubs (70% in both countries is totally in favor)."
Effects of smoking bans
Effects upon health
Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. A 2009 report by the Institute of Medicine concluded that smoking bans reduced the risk of coronary heart disease and heart attacks, but the report's authors were unable to identify the magnitude of this reduction. Also in 2009, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that bans on smoking in public places were associated with a significant reduction of incidence of heart attacks. The lead author of this meta-analysis, David Meyers, said that this review suggested that a nationwide ban on smoking in public places could prevent between 100,000 and 225,000 heart attacks in the United States each year.
Legislating on smoking of tobacco in public places has reduced the cause of heart disease among adults. Such legislations include banning smoking in restaurants, buses, hotels and workplaces. Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) found out that there are cardiovascular effects from exposure to secondhand smoke. An epidemiology report says that the risk of coronary heart disease is increased to around 25-30% when one is exposed to secondhand smoke. The data shows that even at low levels of the smoke, there is the risk and the risks increases with more exposures.
A 2012 meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was associated with a lower rate of hospitalizations for cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases, and that "More comprehensive laws were associated with larger changes in risk." The senior author of this meta-analysis, Stanton Glantz, told USA Today that, with respect to exemptions for certain facilities from smoking bans, "The politicians who put those exemptions in are condemning people to be put into the emergency room." A 2013 review found that smoking bans were associated with "significant reduction in acute MI [myocardial infarction] risk", but noted that “studies with smaller population in the United States usually reported larger reductions, while larger studies reported relatively modest reductions.” 
A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was associated with approximately 10% reductions in preterm births and hospital attendance for asthma, but not with a decrease in low birth weight. A 2016 Cochrane review found that since the previous version of that review was published in 2010, the evidence that smoking bans improved health outcomes had become more robust, especially with respect to acute coronary syndrome admissions.
However, other studies came to the conclusion that smoking bans have little or no short-term effect on myocardial infarction rates and other diseases. A 2010 study from the US used huge nationally representative databases to comapare smoking-restricted areas with control areas and found no associations between smoking bans and short-term declines in heart attack rates. The authors have also analyzed smaller studies using subsamples and revealed that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases 
Effects upon tobacco consumption
Smoking bans are generally acknowledged to reduce rates of smoking; smoke-free workplaces reduce smoking rates among workers, and restrictions upon smoking in public places reduce general smoking rates through a combination of stigmatisation and reduction in the social cues for smoking. However, reports in the popular press after smoking bans have been enacted often present conflicting accounts as regards perceptions of effectiveness.
One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after their smoking bans were implemented. In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after implementation of the ban. In the UK, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the nationwide smoking ban, compared with July 2006.
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris summarised the tobacco industry's concern about the effects of smoking bans: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects [sic] tobacco industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%–15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average."
In the United States, the CDC reported a levelling-off of smoking rates in recent years despite a large number of ever more comprehensive smoking bans and large tax increases. It has also been suggested that a "backstop" of hardcore smokers has been reached: those unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation. The smoking ban in New York City was credited with the reduction in adult smoking rates at nearly twice the rate as in the rest of the country, "and life expectancy has climbed three years in a decade".
In Sweden, use of snus, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since that nation's smoking ban.
Smoking restrictions may make it easier for smokers to quit. A survey suggests 22% of UK smokers may have considered quitting in response to that nation's smoking ban.
Restaurant smoking restrictions may help to stop young people from becoming habitual smokers. A study of Massachusetts youths, found that those in towns with smoking bans were 35 percent less likely to be habitual smokers.
Effects upon businesses
Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoking bans. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with smoking restrictions and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses. Similarly, a 2014 meta-analysis found no significant gains or losses in revenue in restaurants and bars affected by smoking bans.
Studies funded by the bar and restaurant associations have sometimes claimed that smoking bans have a negative effect on restaurant and bar profits. Such associations have also criticised studies which found that such legislation had no impact. Many bar and restaurant associations have relationships with the tobacco industry and are sponsored by them.
A government survey in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after smoking was banned inside them. However, a ClubsNSW report in August 2008 blamed the smoking ban for New South Wales clubs suffering their worst fall in income ever, amounting to a decline of $385 million. Income for clubs was down 11% in New South Wales. Sydney CBD club income fell 21.7% and western Sydney clubs lost 15.5%.
Some smoking restrictions were introduced in German hotels, restaurants, and bars in 2008 and early 2009. The restaurant industry has claimed that some businesses in the states which restricted smoking in late 2007 (Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Hessen) experienced reduced profits. The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (DEHOGA) claimed that the smoking ban deterred people from going out for a drink or meal, stating that 15% of establishments that adopted a ban in 2007 saw turnover fall by around 50%. However, a study by the University of Hamburg (Ahlfeldt and Maennig 2010) finds negative impacts on revenues, if any, only in the very short run. In the medium and long run, a recovery of revenues took place. These results suggest either, that the consumption in bars and restaurants is not affected by smoking bans in the long run, or, that negative revenue impacts by smokers are compensated by increasing revenues through non-smokers. Smoking is not permitted in any public transit or in or around railway stations except for the locations expressly indicated for smoking. Smoking on trains was banned completely by the Deutsche Bahn AG in 2007. Smoking has been restricted in airports and all Lufthansa planes since the late 1990s.
The 2006 FIFA World cup which the country hosted was the last one before bans on smoking in cafes, bars and restaurants were introduced in most of the countries around the world.
In 2008, Bavaria became the first federal state of Germany to completely ban smoking in bars and restaurants. After this restriction was criticized as being "too harsh" by some members of the governing party CSU, it was relaxed one year later. Supporters of smoking bans then brought about a public referendum on the issue, which led to even firmer restrictions than the initial ban. Thereafter, a more comprehensive ban was introduced in 2010.
Also in 2010, the Saarland became the second federal state with a complete ban in bars and restaurants.
In 2013, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany's most populous federal state, became the third state with a strict ban in bars and restaurants.