Guest article: A liberal approach to the smoking ban – Dave Atherton
In case you missed it, yesterday was World No Tobacco Day. Guest contributor Dave Atherton argues for the party to take a more liberal approach to the smoking ban.
“Nearly two years after its introduction, I am still finding it difficult to believe that the smoking ban has not been recommended for amendment by the Liberal Democrats.
It came as a complete surprise when Liberal Democrats voted 5 to 1 for the ban and what were the twenty five absentees doing? Sharing a cigar in Ken Clarke’s office, rolling their own in the Strangers Bar, or being forward thinking and planning the special one-off smoking rooms (for politicians and dignitaries) at this year’s G20 Summit?
The smoking ban was passed largely on the strength of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) which concluded that second hand smoke (SHS) is potentially dangerous. A third of the members were Labour Party apparatchiks, two were members of the fake charity Action On Smoking and Health (ASH), who described their successful PR campaign as a “confidence trick”, six had received funding from pharmaceutical companies, (think how much nicotine replacement therapy products they can sell) and one was a member of the anti-smoking World Health Organization. This left just four who could be claimed to be wholly unbiased. And even one of these – in a private letter to me – admitted that they didn’t understand a basic tenet of epidemiology, Relative Risk.
What has been the net effect of the smoking ban? Since it came into effect, 4,000 pubs, clubs and bingo halls have closed, 40,000 pub staff have been made redundant and another 40,000 are set to lose their jobs in the next two years. How much of this is due to the smoking ban is hard to quantify, but the hard evidence from market analysts AC Nielsen suggests its impact has been very significant indeed.
Scotland brought in their ban in March 2007, and England in July. So there were five months of smoking and non-smoking environments to compare. Beer sales in Scotland decreased by 5%, while in England beer sales rose 4%. The Publican has recently reported that since the ban came in 23% of all bar staff have been laid off.
And have we all packed up smoking? Err no. Across the UK, 21% of women continue to smoke. Amongst men, smoking rates have risen from 23% to 24%. Youth smoking in Scotland is up from 26% to 31%. Has government nannying ever been so ineffective, and destructive?
Can the Liberal Democrats save the day? Yes – by urging Parliament to amend the ban to allow separate, ventilated (keeping the health zealots happy) premises for smoking like in Spain, Germany, Austria and Denmark, thereby allowing a legal pastime to take place on private property. Smoking rates among Labour supporters are around 30%-35% and the LibDems could go a long way to ingratiate themselves to hundreds of thousands disillusioned Labour voters. So, when you go canvassing in the industrial heartlands don’t forget your packet of Golden Virginia, it will go down well.”
Dave Atherton is a national committee member of Freedom To Choose. The opinions expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of Liberal Vision (although in this case, there probably isn’t a cigarette paper between us).
June 1st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Mark why are you so obsessed with overturning the public smoking ban other then being a smoker & the annoyance of having to light up outside in crap weather?
Though the public smoking ban does contravene fundamental property rights at least you can smoke in your own home where as I can’t spliff up in my home without being labelled a criminal.
I’m sure there’s some health nazis out there (Patricia Hewitt etc) who’d like to ban smoking all together however I feel the majority of people don’t but do support the public smoking ban.
I fear like Southampton FC overturning the public smoking ban is a lost cause.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I think we all have our “hobby issues,” areas that we focus on more than others. We can’t all comment on every issue equally (or according to overall righteousness).
Personally I’d agree that the illegality of cannabis is worse than the smoking ban – but similarly tobacco does face a constant onslaught from “health activists” who are convinced that all smokers are forced to do so by cunning, egregious multinationals.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
One of the problems of the ban on smoking in enclosed public places is the consequence that licenses for smoking outside premises – in the street – are being mooted. Which means if a premises don’t have a license then they are responsible for enforcing the law on the street, which sets a dangerous standard.
If the health argument isn’t strong enough to support an outright prohibition of all sale and consumption of tobacco the the law must strictly outline all and any exemptions.
But I don’t think the law is the best policy tool for restricting smoking. I think tobacco should be taxed more. In fact I would immediately double the tax on tobacco and reduce the tax on beer, but maybe that’s just me – would it win any votes?
June 1st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Ziggy, look to California, their smoking ban has progressed to private property. If you live in an apartment block you’re not allowed to smoke either inside or less than two feet from any door. It’s important to fight each attack on private property rights and liberty at each step of the way.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Jack, it is even worse than that. In Belmont, California it will be soon illegal to smoke in your own home, unless it detached, your car, public parks and the street.
“Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking
By Dana Yates, Daily Journal Staff
Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else. The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.”
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988
June 1st, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Dave, I agree with your article. Smoking bans were brought in on the back of ‘bad’ science and extreme lobbying, and have resulted in thousands of people losing their jobs.
There is nothing wrong with catering for everyone and offering choice to both businesses and customers alike. That way everyone can socialise in the environment that suits them. There is no need for a total ban.
Let us not forget though, this ban was only brought in to protect people working in these establishments (not their customers), even though our very own Health and Safety Executive claimed that second-hand smoke posed no risk in the workplace.
I too am finding it difficult to believe that an amendment isn’t being discussed to address the huge issues that the blanket ban has caused, particularly in this current economic climate.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I would be quite interested to see how many of the so called disastrous effects on the pub/club industry that are claimed to have been caused by the smoking ban in this article have actually been caused by a general downward trend in these industries that have been going on for many years, coupled with the current economic recession. I suspect that minus these effects, the actual impact on the industry of the smoking ban is quite small, or at least a lot smaller than those arguing against the ban would admit.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
David R,
This is the thing that is very hard to parcel out. To what extent is the smoking ban causal as opposed to merely corrleated ? Were all these pubs going to shut anyway?
The AC Nielsen study seems to be the most authoritative from what I can find. I think they posit that about 50% of the closures are due to the ban.
This needs to be offset against the supposed risks of second hand smoke, of course. No one would object to hundreds of pubs closing if this saves tens of thousands of innocent people from lung cancer.
I doubt we’ll find any measurable health benefit to bar staff (and probably a measurable downward turn for those who have been made redundant). But the stats should start to become clear soon. If there is a proven and enormous collapse in lung cancer rates for non-smokers since the ban came in, I will stand corrected. Anti-smokers have also claimed that more minor ailments are caused by second hand smoke, so we’d expect to see a stunning drop in absenteeism from bar staff too.
My best guess is….it’s just yet more nannying for no real purpose.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Personally, I don’t think the main argument against the ban is its negative effect on pubs/clubs and the like. It’s that it is the government telling businesses what perfectly legal activity they can and can’t allow on their property. If pubs want to enact smoking bans, that’s fine by them, if governments want to enact smoking bans in government buildings, that’s fine by them. But when the government enacts smoking bans in private businesses, that is frankly morally wrong, and as Dave so rightly points out, part of a rather worrying slippery slope towards supernanny state.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
I appreciate that some may say it is hard to distinguish the effect the smoking ban has had on pubs as there are many factors to consider during this current time.
However, I do know that before the credit crunch/recession hit, that the figures were as follows:
1409 – 2007 (ban implemented in July 2007)
216 – 2006
102 – 2005
The supermarkets had always sold alchohol cheaper than the pubs during these years, and I am aware that ASH have also acknowledged that the smoking ban has had the effect on pub closures that the AC Nielson research has proved.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
yes yes yes we all know the smoking ban is wrong but the point is what is the likelyhood of it ever being overturned?
Probably none & aren’t there more pressing issues in the world
June 1st, 2009 at 11:49 pm
If you take that attitude what is the likelyhood that cannabis is going to get legalised, MDMA is going to get legalised, LSD, Mushrooms, Coke, Heroin, speed, meth, mescaline, opium, I could go on erowid and just copy and paste if you like. The important thing is, if we fight these things, we may be able to change public opinion.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 am
I have never understood the “more pressing issues” argument.
I mean….geeess….this is a blog for heaven’s sake. A stream of views get expressed. All of them liberal.
It’s the rough equivalent of going to a website about philately and saying “why do you care about stamp collecting, isn’t third world starvation more important?”
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 am
The best practical way to break this ban would be to support the licensing of shisha. I can’t see the logic of forcing people to smoke outside in a shisha bar when its for an explicit purpose.
The best way to do this would be to allow local authorities to be allowed to overturn the ban.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 am
I appreciate Jack’s comments on liberties but let us then get back to perfect emperical evidence. Ireland enacted their ban in March 2004, at a time of economic prosperity. Ireland’s pubs are mainly freeholder owned, not by breweries or pub companies. In a population of 3.5 million they had 10,000 pubs, in 5 years 1,500 pubs have closed. Here is some evidence from Parliament and is dated 18 months after their ban:
“In Ireland, volume sales in pubs have declined between 10% and 15% and in some cases, the decline is as much as 25%. The trend is increasingly away from pubs to drinking at home. In 2004, draught sales fell by 6% and sales for packaged beer went up by 9%[48]. For the first seven months of 2005, draught sales are down by 8% while packaged have gone up by 15%[49].”
Just like the UK people stopped going to the pub and drank at home so they could smoke.
In 2007 The Times reported: “Nearly 440 fewer pub licences were issued or renewed last year than in 2005, the steepest fall recorded in the Republic. The greatest number of closures were in remote communities along the West Coast. Up to 1,000 rural bars are now thought to have shut since the ban came into effect in 2004.”
Again this was pre credit crunch.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/485/485we37.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1443931.ece
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 am
What this is a liberal blog expressing liberal opinion…I must really stupid not to realise that.
Is that why it’s called Liberal Vision?
Yeah well liberalism isn’t just about the annoyance of you having to stand outside some pub in the pissing rain to have a ciggie. But hey at least you can stand outside a pub in the pissing rain & have a ciggie & not run the risk of getting arrested unlike anybody who stood outside a pub smoking a spliff.
You know I half expect Liberal Vision to issue a press statement say the Football League deducting points from Southampton was illiberal being as Liberal Vision’s agenda on social issues is Mark’s social agenda.
I’ll never forget the original outline to the social issues you wanted to tackle I looked at the list of drinking, smoking & gambling & I remember thinking hmm that’s weird because Mark likes to drink, smoke & gamble.
So I guess drugs, hoes & guns are illiberal because they don’t interest Mark Littlewood.
Liberalism to me ain’t just being the f**king Hofmeister Bear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh6aqOR_XFo
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:05 am
Ziggy – this blog was about the smoking ban though. It wasn’t about anything else.
You agree that it was wrong, I do as well (along with many other things in this country) – but what are the so-called liberal democrats doing about it?
Do they even speak for the people of our country anymore, or do they just listen to the quangos, extremists and the EU like Labour?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:12 am
I think you’ll find that a majority of Lib Dems support the smoking ban
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:29 am
Ziggy,
Don’t suppose you spotted the post about drugs legalisation on here the other day?
http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/05/24/drugs-%e2%80%93-obama-czar-leading-a-liberal-shift/
I was gutted that Julian posted it. My attempts to secretly get the Centre for Policy Studies to kill off the whole issue with the CIA-funded study that I organised clearly failed.
Damn.
Foiled again.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Yes I’m aware of that post Mark if you look close you’ll see I posted a comment
Now hows about a post reeling off the evils of drug war loudly
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The smoking ban, and the fact that 95% of Lib Dem MPs voted for it, brought an end to my 35 years of voting Liberal and Lib Dem. As far as I am concerned, anyone who approves of this ban isn’t a liberal, and the Lib Dem party that approves of the ban isn’t a liberal party. Either that, or my notion of what is meant by ‘liberal’ as approximating to something like ‘tolerant’ is entirely mistaken.
As best I can make out, ‘liberal’ now means something more like ‘trendy’, ‘prejudiced’, and ‘credulous’. There’s no doubt that there is a trend towards banning things, and so it’s trendy to be in favour of bans. And since bans are often backed by pseudo-scientific studies which defy common sense, it helps to be credulous as well. ‘Liberals’ are no longer concerned with liberty in general, but instead with their own personal liberties, screw everybody else’s. Hence the various mentions of cannabis, which is what some ‘liberals’ prefer to smoke rather than tobacco. The modern ‘liberal’ personally prefers a non-smoking environment, and that alone is sufficient to justify a smoking ban. If he personally preferred alcohol-free drinks, he would quite happily ban alcohol as well, particularly if he could airily refer to some ‘scientific’ study (which he had never read) that supported this prejudice.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
‘As best I can make out, ‘liberal’ now means something more like ‘trendy’, ‘prejudiced’, and ‘credulous’.’
Here’s something I wrote at the begining of 2008
———————————————————–
I fear the future of the Liberal Democrats considering the likes of Alice Humphreys
In the contemporary political climate you hold to the principle of individual liberty you’re more then likely to be considered a kook and ultimately ostracized after being poked and mocked but never what you say taken seriously. I have pondered more then once lately why I bother making a stand for individual liberty when I am either mocked or ignored and on one occasion its been suggest I need therapy. What’s worse that this does not just come from the uneducated masses but from fellow members of The Liberal Democrats.
The reason I do continue campaigning for the cause of individual liberty is that the opposition to the current authoritarianism in Britain is so ineffective and so I guess somebody has to shout in opposition. In fact what pisses me off more is not the government being authoritarian as I kind f expect any government to be so, its the lack of an effective opposition. I so often feel I am fighting on my own for the cause of liberty because nobody is willing to make any sacrifice for the betterment of individual liberty. I think people daydream that if they whine about etc enough suddenly etc will change. No it takes real sacrifice and those who are prepared to make real sacrifices for liberty are labelled as kooks.
Yeah in my experience if you’re a liberty activist in Britain you’re seen as a ‘kook’ and ‘maladjusted’ not noble or honourable. Jeez Orwell would puke or scream at such notions but hey this is the consequence of the post ideology and no conviction political climate and I fear for the future especially considering the likes of Alice Humphreys my local Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate.
Alice claims to have convictions oh yeah a conviction to say anything which will get her elected. I remember not so long ago I asked her about the recent proposals the Labour government had on cracking down on prostitution, which were a infringement on property rights, that one owns their own body and should be free to do what they like with it so long as they are not harming anybody. Not a hard concept to understand but what was Alice’s reply, well it was err…well…err…err. I wonder do they give out free tubs of Vaseline to all Lib Dems because sitting on fence long enough will hurt anybody’s backside and of course piss me off no end for being incapable of being adamant.
Alice claims I come off sounding like a anarchist yet Alice claims to of read John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, it’s the most important influence when it comes to my personal political philosophy. Anyways if Alice had read it she would realised I am not an anarchist but actually a genuine liberal because On Liberty is just an important book to liberals as it is to libertarians. But hey why the fuck should that matter because this is the age of post ideology and no principle politics, so matters non that you’ve no idea what liberalism is if you join the Liberal Democrats. Oh there are plenty of members who have no clue of what liberalism is and when reminded of it deny, cringe and run away or accuse me of being a kook.
Recently a Lib Dem said to me that classical liberals and libertarians have a blinkered view that freedom is being left unmolested, err its not blinkered because that is what freedom basically is to quote the late great Bill Hicks “What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body – as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet”. Fucking social democrats well the euphemism Caring Understanding Nineties Type comes to mind. Oh they can never leave people alone because they seem to have the arrogant notion they know how best people should live their lives even if they don’t want or need such advice.
On a personal note the reason I never ask for help even when maybe I should is this attitude people have that they know better then me about how I should live my life is ingrained in British culture and it stinks. You ask for help and you will not get the help that you think you need your get the help others think you need. But even if you do not ask for help, even if you pass no opinion or any judgement on others people still think they know better about how I should be living my life. Is it any wonder I am such a recluse and avoid people as much as possible, is it any wonder I sneer at social democrats the political expression of noisy neighbours.
Social democrats the ones who want to tax junk food, the ones who want to issue smoking licences, who continuously infringe upon basic individual rights and if you do not conform to their no better whim then you need therapy. I am amongst other things I am left asking myself why is it they are now the more dominant wing of the Liberal Democrats they are fucking fascists and can fuck off back to the Labour Party.
Since the Labour Party has steadily become not so trendy and decidedly unpopular I have observed the wishy-washy socialists drift to the Liberal Democrats. Once there they attempt to corrupt the Liberal Democrats into a solely social democratic party. Hey I did not join a social democrat party purporting continuous intervention into the lives of individuals because of an arrogant assumption social democrats know better. I joined a party which had believed the individual should be unmolested as much as possible. Yes maybe I’m a fool but I believe that is what the Liberal Democrats still should be a party of conviction and principle about the cause of individual liberty.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I’ll happily second that Ziggy, I’d add that it’s as much the fault of environmentalists attatching themselves to the Lib Dems as old labour (though, as many have said, the green movement kicked off when they replaced hammers and sickles with wind farms and repainted the flags green). Unfortunately this is what happens in a party with such a broad tent. It’s the same in all parties. If you want a pure libertarian party you could join the Libertarian Party, I hear they might even get upwards of 6 or 7 votes come the general election.
Unless we plan a Thatcherite/Blairite purification of the party I doubt the Lib Dems will ever be rid of those that give it it’s tax and spend sandalista reputation.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:44 am
All the party needs to do is listen to the people that they are supposed to represent instead of quangos (who are basically people who live and breathe their ideal life and want everybody else to live that way).
Citizens within a country cannot be made to be like anyone else. They are themselves; they are diverse; they all need catering for.
If you cater for all your citizens, instead of those that are approved of by quangos, the EU, or world authorities, then you will never go wrong.
Britain needs a strong voice globally and within the EU, but that does not mean that it has to bow down to their every wish and whim if it does not suit her country and her people.
Crime will reduce; people will feel better; communities and the economy will flourish.
It is up to the LibDems to decide.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:15 am
@Mark
You might want to check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppTy-f0pFuE
Bbtw why hasn’t Liberal Vision got a You Tube channel yet?
June 17th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Ziggy, thanks for that.
Regards
Dave
June 24th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Just got a message about this thought worth sharing
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/justice-and-civil-liberties/amend-the-smoking-ban-200906233749/
December 22nd, 2010 at 4:49 am
Mr Flavour Shisha Hire is an independent UK nationwide company that caters for all sorts of events ranging from Weddings to Birthdays. Bringing an elegant touch to all events rarely seen before.
Check us out on:
http://www.mrflavour.co.uk
http://www.facebook.com/mrflavour
June 24th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Sorry for the huge review, but i am genuinely loving the brand-new Zune, and wish this, too as being the great evaluations some other individuals have written, can help you decide if it is the best variety for you.
August 1st, 2011 at 1:41 pm
One thing: I do not exactly know what do you mean in the second paragraph. Could you please exmplain your opinion? Regards, Szkolenia.