Two years of the smoking ban and the damage continues
Today marks the second anniversary of the ban on smoking in “public” places (actually a ban on smoking in private places, visited by the public). With dozens of pubs closing every week, an amendment to the blanket prohibition is crucial in assisting the licensed trade. With Labour largely united around the ban and the Tories saying they have “no plans” to change the law, this is surely an issue that the LibDems could latch on to. Angry and disllusioned publicans would also be a considerable electoral asset.
The Save our Pubs and Clubs campaign – which seeks an amendment to the smoking ban that is fair to all publicans, pub staff and customers – was launched in central London last week, and will be taking its message to every corner of the country. You can become a supporterof the campaign here.
UPDATE: The campaign launch video is now online:
July 1st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
You’re joking, right? This legislation is one of the good things the Labour Government has done. Far from deterring customers, it has meant people like me, who object to being killed by other peoples’ smoke, can now go to pubs and enjoy ourselves.
Those who want to smoke can go outside to the dry, covered shelters that most pubs now provide.
This is just an excuse by publicans trying to find something or someone to blame for the failings of their industry.
Too many pubs are living in the past and have failed to bring their pubs up to date in terms of the service they offer. That, combined with the inevitable results of this recession and the competition from cheap booze in the supermartkets, are the reasons why most of these pubs are closing: not because a small minority of the population who continue to smoke now have to go outside the back door of the pub to indulge in their habit.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Mike, can you provide any evidence, aside from anecdotal examples of your own personal preferences, to support your points? Mainly that
1) the smoking ban has encouraged custom to pubs, not deterred it
2) pubs are closing because of some kind of mass inability to “bring them up to date”, rather than the effects of banning smoking and heavily taxing drinks. I understand that pubs were on the decline before the recession kicked in.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
There’s not a great deal of evidence for your assertions, Mike.
No one would claim that the smoking ban is the only cause of pub closures, but it has been a significant contributory factor. The best way of proving this is the impact on pubs in Scotland compared to England in the period between the smoking ban being in force int he former and not the latter.
Most pubs do not provide dry, covered shelters. Many pubs – particularly in cities – are landlocked.
There isn’t any evidence to suggest that non-smokers are now goign to the pub more frequently due to the smoke-free environment. But there must be a way to amend the law to ensure differing consumer needs are catered for. Options could include (a) separate enclsoed smoking rooms (b) regulations on ventilation or air quality (c) issuing a limited number of smoking licenses, or a mixture of these three.
Over 20% of adults smoke cigarettes, and the number is reckoned to be very much higher amongst regualr pub-goers. This is a pretty big minority that are not having their pretty reasonable desires catered for.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
As someone who can’t stand cigarette smoke I’m still opposed to this ban.
Why? Because I believe in freedom. That includes the freedom of private persons to permit whatever activity they like on their property between consenting adults.
Funnily I go to the pub far less now than I did before the smoking ban… It has had no impact on how often I go, even though I personally prefer smoke free pubs.
Its funny, its mostly the so-called left (the middle class portion thereof for the most part) who support banning smoking and they usually defend it because they personally prefer it. Such selfishness from those who consider themselves enlightened selfless people. Denying others freedom for their own reasons. To deny others pleasure because it inconveniences them without infringing upon their liberty.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Here are the results from the Morning Advertiser April 2008 a pub trade magazine, the smoking ban appears to be the main reason, read and weep.
“The smoking ban was cited as having the biggest impact on business: three times as many licensees (57%) blaming the ban for lost trade as those citing consumer-spending slowdown as the key factor (19%).”
On unemployment:
“The most startling statistic is that 10% of pubs are operating at a loss or zero profit.
Also, as many as 78,000 full and part-time jobs may have been lost if the survey results replicate the situation across the 50,000 pubs in England and Wales.”
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/59396
July 1st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
As the only Liberal Democrat to speak, in principle against this ban, when the party first voted for it I have to say that it is still an illiberal measure & the overwhelming support the party gave to it only proves that the party is in no way a liberal organisation.
It is un fortunate that the victims here, the people who used to be working, have no redress against the guilty, but that applies in many things, thousands of times worse, that the party is guilty of.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
In response to Mike Barkers comments.
Name one person ‘KILLED’ by SHS? This is a myth by Tax payers ‘charities’ such as ASH & CRUK.
I would think publicans know their business better than you and when they say the smoking ban has killed their trade I believe them. Not the government, ASH, CRUK or any other organisation that has jumped onto the band wagon.
The only reason pubs are closing is the decline in people crossing their door-steps. What happened to the 7 million non-smokers that who were set to invade the pubs when the ban was introduced. A promised by Caroline Flint before the ban was imposed. Look what happened to her!!
I think the smokers are to blame for the collapse of the pub trade. After all, they have stopped visiting!! Yes folks, again it’s those killers, selfish morons, smellie, filthy smokers that are causing the collapse.
God what a sad country we live in!!
July 1st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
The right to breath unpolluted air in public places is a fundamental freedom. The almost 80% of the population who do not smoke must have the liberty, if they choose, to enjoy a pint in their local without being subjected to exhaust from the fag puffing 20%+ minority.
The problem for pubs is that it is cheaper and more convenient to drink supermarket wine, beer and spirits in the home rather than visit a pub, which, for most people, would mean taking the car and require the driver to abstain.
It is no more illiberal to protect the majority from the adverse effects of smoking than it is to protect them from the adverse effects of drink driving. Both can be lethal.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Ian Shepherd.
A pub is not “a public place” in the sense you mean. It is private property. You have a right to breath unpolluted air in public.
The analogy with drink driving is a poor one, since you cannot voluntarily avoid being mown down by a drunk driver. You can voluntarily avoid smoking pubs. You just prefer to use the power of the law to force other people to provide you with the service you prefer.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I know two people killed by second hand smoke. One is a colleague’s mother, who was married to a heavy smoker, and died of lung cancer. The second was a local LibDem, who worked in an office where smoking was permitted. He too died of lung cancer.
Does Liberal Vision think that we should permit smoking in offices again? What about trains, buses and planes?
We should also be aware that if people are not spending money in pubs, they are spending it elsewhere. For this reason claims that xx thousands jobs have been destroyed is best seen as an upperbound – since the same amount of money is spent elsewhere, it is at least plausible that xx thousand jobs has been created elsewhere.
Finally, the various MMC reports document the decline in the number of pubs – it is a very long established trend.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought I had meandered into a Liberal web-site, but the comments don’t appear to show that.
Good grief, Mike Barker. Read the question, as they used to say in school (and I hope still do). The campaign doesn’t ask you to breathe any smoke whatsoever. It allows choice for those who do want to, or for the vast majority who really don’t give a hoot. You will still have your clean air, in fact, you will still have the majority of establishments. It’s the ‘all of them’ that is wrong. It beggars belief that there is someone, just one, on a Liberal site who believes it is liberal to deny people enjoying a legal product in a place where they, personally, would not ever set foot in.
Ian Shepherd: There is no ‘right’ to clean air, merely safe levels. H&S legislation wasn’t enough to ban SHS from pubs as the threat is miniscule, and certainly not covered by the terms of the EU directives which initially drove our laws. Hence the Health Act 2006. As for this bit …
The almost 80% of the population who do not smoke must have the liberty, if they choose, to enjoy a pint in their local without being subjected to exhaust from the fag puffing 20%+ minority
Another who didn’t read the question. Amending the ban would give you the liberty, if you choose, to enjoy a pint in your local without being subjected to exhaust from the fag-puffing minority.
Which bit, exactly did you misunderstand about the video. Did you even watch it before enagaging prejudice?
Tim Leunig: Labate v Commission would tend to disagree with your bald statement in the first sentence. But thanks for setting out your pre-disposed one-sided position from the start.
Does Liberal Vision think smoking in offices, trains, buses, and planes should be allowed? I don’t now, but wouldn’t it be a good idea to read Mark’s article and watch the video? If you find any hint at that anywhere, please tell us. Good grief.
As for the long-established trend in closures of pubs. Where on earth do you get your information from? Here are the actual figures per week for the last 5 years (with links to proper evidence, not just hearsay and opinion).
2005: 2
2006: : 4
2007: : 27
2008: 39
2009: 52
Long-established trend? Only since July 1st 2007, it would seem.
The campaign is a worthy one and should be supported by those who claim to be ‘Liberal’. No-one will be adversely affected against their will, so what’s not to like?
The comments here prove, yet again, that the smoking ban was nothing about health. To paraphrase Mencken, it’s merely about the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, will be enjoying something that others don’t like.
I just wish everyone would be honest about it and stop pretending it is about health. It’s not. It’s about bigotry and prejudice.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 am
@Tim Leunig:
Frankly I find your post difficult to believe. Did their death certificates say lung cancer caused by passive smoking? Also what form of lung cancer did the die of, small cell carcinoma or squamous, oat cell lung cancer. Smokers die from the former exclusively, non smokers the latter.
The incidence of lung cancer per year for non smokers is 4/100,000 per year and the peak age is 65-75 so over a 30 year period the chances of 2 people dying from passive smoke, so far medically unproven would be:
4/100,000 x 4/100,000 x 30 = 48/ 100,000,000
approximately 1 in 2 million chance.
Also these people did you have access to their genetic profile (450% raised chance of lung cancer), did you ask them whether they ate 5 portions of fruit and veggies (reduces all cancers by 66%), if they drink full fat milk they have a 216%, red wine consumption (50 glasses a month reduces your incidence of LC to zero), did they own diesel cars or live near high levels of traffic polution (300% raised risk). BTW as a medical point men can also die of breast cancer. The risk of dying of LC from passive smoke is between 40% PROTECTIVE to a statistically insignificant 25%. The average is 100%, neither protective or a risk.
As I say I find your post difficult to believe and please feel free to critique my maths and science. Smoking almost certainly was not the reason.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:27 am
Mark’s wearing that awful tie again
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:34 am
I have read the previous comments and it seems to me that there is a ‘fault line’ that runs through everybody’s ideas on the smoking ban.
When the Ministers of the Government, Patricia Hewitt and Coroline Flint, appeared on TV when the smoking ban was introduced, they said that ‘thousands of lives would be saved’ as a result of the reduction in passive smoking. Note, however, that they were unable to identify even ONE individual whose life would be saved. They could not even backtrack and say that Roy Castle’s life would have been saved if there had been a smoking ban in clubs for the last 50 years.
What they did, however, is ennunciate a GENERAL PRINCIPLE – that ‘lives would be saved’. Unfortunately, the people as a whole fell for it.
Fortunately for us all, there is no such GENERAL PRINCIPLE (I say ‘fortunately’ because, if the GENERAL PRINCIPLE were true, then there would have been nobody alive in the 1960s because of all the smoking that we indulged in and also because of the years and years of passive smoking that we were all subjected to). It is NOT TRUE that ‘thousands of lives will be saved’. There simply is no evidence.
There simply is no GENERAL PRINCIPLE that anyone who comes into contact with tobacco smoke will die, or become ill. It simply is not true.
The REALITY is that the risk of suffering any harm whatsoever from environmental tobacco smoke is ABSOLUTELY MINISCULE – even if one spends all day working in a pub or any other workplace where smoking is allowed. Query: has anyone investigated the carcinogenic properties of PERFUMES? Ladies perfumes, in the pub, make me gag and spoil the taste of my beer. I think that these perfumes should be banned, especially as they make my clothes and my hair stink. I, PERSONALLY, DEMAND THE RIGHT TO HAVE A PERFUME FREE ATMOSPHERE IN ALL ENCLOSED PLACES!
Think about it this way.
If the ban was relaxed so that publicans can, if they wish to, provide a separate room for smokers, and (adult) smokers are happy to accept the risks, OF WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IS IT TO NON-SMOKERS?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 am
I’d certainly expect stratospherically brilliant health statistics on heart attacks and cancer from bar staff between July 1st 2007 and July 1st 2009.
I also assume absenteeism for health reasons from bar staff has plumetted since July 1st 2007.
If my civil liberties are being curtailed because my vice constitutes lethal exposure to oppressed workers, I might just about swallow the inconvenience.
Given the smoking ban has been in place for 2 years, the statistics will surely be available shortly.
I trust these stats will be truly impressive. I’d hate to think that I’m being forced to smoke outside for petty bureaucratic convenience rather than for the measurable health benefits of licensed staff.
Hmmm…..
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 am
Dave Atherton.
Your maths are indeed wrong – by a factor of ten. The correct figure is approximately 1 in 20 million. But, what is good about your ‘massive’ miscalculation, is that it illustrates very clearly the idea of a MINISCULE RISK. If your miscalculation had been correct, then you would have been talking about 30 people out of a population in this country of 60 million – incredibly small. The fact that you were out by a factor of ten means that you were talking about 3 people in a population of 60 million! Even more miniscule, but still, in general terms, UTTERLY MINISCULE.
Oh, by the way, we should not be influenced by the arguement ‘it is not worth the life of one child….’. This used to be a mantra of the popular press. One does not see it very often these days but I am sure that it will rear its ugly head again. If the mantra were true, we would have no cars, no buses, no trains, no aircraft, etc.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:04 am
The claim that the ban is to defend the right of people not to breath smoky air in pubs & thus liberal is clearly a disingenous one made by people trying to hide the fact that they are more fascist than liberal. Anybody who doesn’t to be near a smoker is perfectly entitled to give his custom only to pubs that voluntyarily ban smoking. ranted there were few of them but that only proves how little demand there was.
No opponent of the ban has said that pubs should be forced to allow smokers – I challenge anybody supporting the ban on “liberal” grounds to provide a counter-example.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I am 100% behind the campaign to amend the smoking ban. It was a jingoistic piece of legislation that the government introduced because it thought it could. Because it likes to preach and interfere in every aspect of everyones life. Well enough is enough!
I agree that many people enjoy a smoke free environment – but why this cannot be the choice of the landlord I simply dont understand. IF there is such demand for it publicans would (as some were) move to a smoke free environment for its customers. It may even be the case that MOST pubs moved to this. But that should be their choice.
Clear signs on the front door/window stating whether the pub is smoking or non-smoking will allow us, the people, to decide which pubs we choose. And so it should be in a free society doing something that is entirely legal.
I hope to see the vast majority of Lib Dem MPs accepting that they got caught up in the hype at the time of the ban -and support this campaign’s objectives.
Good luck.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I agree entirely with the smoking ban and I also agree with Tim Leunig’s comments as well, about the benefits of the money being spent elsewhere in the economy.
What is striking is the complete lack of a popular movement to reverse the ban.
As a result I confidently predict that any attempt to change Lib Dem policy on this will fail.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
@ Geoff “What is striking is the complete lack of a popular movement to reverse the ban.”
If that is the case then the law can be scrapped and publicans can choose their own smoking policy, after all hardly any would choose smoking, n’est pas?
July 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Not a complete lack, there is that guy who is going to lose his pub because he keeps getting fined & a number of others & I believe both the UKIP & the BNP support freedom. However it is true that Britain’s entrenched political class is almost unanimous on this as, of course, are the state controlled media & the government funded “charities” such as Ash. That alone should worry anybody who would like Britain to be liberal, free, or democratic. However on that split I sure you are absolutely right about the “LibDems” staying on the side of totalitarianism.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:21 am
I am a mere statistic, and doubtless there are many others whose actions have been affected thus by the smoking ban.
Prior to the ban I visited my local on at least two or three evenings a week, almost every Sunday lunchtime and every Monday evening for the quiz. I would use the pub to meet friends prior to going out elsewhere.
Now the ban is in place, I go to the pub on a Monday evening. That’s it. My friends and I now meet at our own homes for a drink (and a cigarette).
Having spoken to the landlord, he tells me that his takings are down since the ban by about half. He went on to say that the majority who use the pub less than they used to, blame the ban. Even the non smokers.
These are facts. It’s only one small local pub, but facts they remain.