Comments on: Two years of the smoking ban and the damage continues http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/ Looking Forward to Freedom Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:26:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Mark Robertson http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1596 Mark Robertson Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:21:47 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1596 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. 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.

]]> By: Neil Craig http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1372 Neil Craig Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:35:18 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1372 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. 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.

]]> By: Dave Atherton http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1371 Dave Atherton Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:28:58 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1371 @ 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? @ 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?

]]> By: Geoffrey Payne http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1367 Geoffrey Payne Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:27:48 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1367 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. 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.

]]> By: Angela Harbutt http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1343 Angela Harbutt Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:08:35 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1343 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. 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.

]]> By: Neil Craig http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1327 Neil Craig Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:04:00 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1327 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. 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.

]]> By: Junican http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1326 Junican Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:15:59 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1326 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. 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.

]]> By: Mark Littlewood http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1325 Mark Littlewood Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:15:39 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1325 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..... 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…..

]]> By: Junican http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1324 Junican Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:34:00 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1324 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? 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?

]]> By: Ziggy Encaoua http://www.liberal-vision.org/2009/07/01/two-years-of-the-smoking-ban-and-the-damage-continues/comment-page-1/#comment-1323 Ziggy Encaoua Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:27:48 +0000 http://www.liberal-vision.org/?p=1934#comment-1323 Mark's wearing that awful tie again Mark’s wearing that awful tie again

]]>