Friday
... but if you think that means the idea of banning smoking in the UK has been condemned, you would be wrong. The headline appeared in the Telegraph above the article reporting that plans to restrict areas for smokers in pubs were denounced as inadequate last night by campaigners pressing for a ban.
The anti-smoking campaigners denounced the agreement of more than 20,000 pubs in Britain to introduce restrictions on smoking to make around 80 per cent of bar space tobacco-free within five years. Smokers in these outlets would be restricted to specified areas or rooms.
The 'anti-choice extremists' for the smoking ban, apparently encouraged by evidence suggesting that a big drop in tobacco sales in Ireland due the prohibition on smoking in pubs, are pushing for more. Deborah Arnott, director of Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said:
This is a last desperate throw of the dice by the biggest players in the pub trade. They spin their plans as a smoke-free initiative, but they are nothing of the kind.They will still leave their non-smoking customers gasping and leave more than half the country's pubs unaffected.
I must be missing something, I did not notice any spin for a smoke-free initiative. It is a question of choice, not an imposition of a health-fascist measure.
Rob Hayward of the British Beer and Pub Association, which brokered the deal, argued with sensible points:
Clearly with the number of non-smokers on the increase companies want to reflect that in the way they run their pubs. We want to see better choice for non-smokers. At the same time we believe in freedom of choice and a policy that will still allow smokers to enjoy a night out with their friends in the pub.
Indeed. I do not like cigarette smoke in pubs, bars and restaurants although I am partial to a good cigar. But I do like the right of owners to let customers do in them what they wish on their premises. And it seems that even a government survey cannot produce better than 20 percent support for a total ban.
Surveys nothwithstanding, the ban in Ireland caused a 15 per cent drop in trade. A similar loss of business in Britain would lead to the closure of 5,000 pubs. And that's got to be a bad thing.
By all means, let's keep those lungs nice and pink as people toxicify their brains and livers with alcohol.
Posted by toolkien at September 10, 2004 05:13 PM
"It is a question of choice, not a imposition of a health-fascist measure."
I wouldn't call doing something "voluntarily" before you are forced to do it, as "choice" in any real sense. The fact remains that the pub chains are implementing measures which they would not have chosen to implement, but for the threat of legislation.
That may not be as bad as being forced, but it is a close run thing.
Posted by Julius at September 10, 2004 06:17 PM
5000 pubs to close. Well, I can think of about 5000 pubs I'd like to see close, I wonder if they're the ones that will...
I'm not really getting wound up about this. There are lots of things pubs aren't allowed to do, like serve drinks all night, or have roullette tables, or make their own whisky. Pubs aren't people and they don't have rights. The gvt can make up any rules they want about what pubs can and can't do, and while I may agree with some and not others, they are not restrictions on the liberty of individuals.
I agree there is a good deal of health-facism around at the moment, but since I personally hate smoky pubs. I'm all in favour. All they need to do now is ban fruit machines and piped music...
J
Posted by J at September 10, 2004 11:13 PM
J:
"Pubs aren't people and they don't have rights. The gvt can make up any rules they want about what pubs can and can't do, and while I may agree with some and not others, they are not restrictions on the liberty of individuals."
Tell me I didn't just read this.
Posted by Julius at September 10, 2004 11:30 PM
J - certainly pubs aen't people and they don't have rights. But pubs are private premises and by accepting a ban on smoking in pubs you're accepting the principle of government dictating what you may or may not do in your own private premises. If a pub owner doesn't want anyone smoking on his premises he is free to ban the activity or anyone who flounts his own rule. If the owner is happy for people to be left free to smoke on his premises that's no business of the government or anyone else.
Apologies if this rambles a bit, I've just had a few beers. I thought I'd have a few in my own home before someone calls from the government telling me I'm no longer allowed to do this.
Posted by Pete_London at September 10, 2004 11:37 PM
J has a little list of 5,000 pubs he'd "like to see closed". In addition, J "personally hate[s] smoky pubs" but agrees that "there is a good deal of health-facism around at the moment, but since I personally hate smoky pubs I'm all in favour [of the ban]. All they need to do now is ban fruit machines and piped music..."
Ah, the bracing prose of a libertarian!
Posted by Verity at September 11, 2004 02:09 AM
I'm just surprised Citizen Ken and the London Broughs haven't tried to get smoking pubs closed down using the Disorderly Houses Act, and now Anti Social Behaviour Orders.
The Standard was happily trumpeting the other day that a club had been closed down using an ASBO.
Posted by Guy Herbert at September 11, 2004 07:09 AM
Pubs have always been a place where tradionally, people smoke. It is entirely part of what they are. Why then, do the licensed trade and government not encourage the opening of new smoke free bars called "snubs" and leave the rest as they are. I smoked, got cancer, smoke and still have cancer. It is my choice.
Posted by Cancergiggles at September 11, 2004 09:56 AM
J:
the dry cleaners called; your brown shirts are ready for you to pick up.
Posted by Richard Easbey at September 11, 2004 09:25 PM
I'm not really getting wound up about this. There are lots of things pubs aren't allowed to do, like serve drinks all night, or have roullette tables, or make their own whisky. Pubs aren't people and they don't have rights. The gvt can make up any rules they want about what pubs can and can't do, and while I may agree with some and not others, they are not restrictions on the liberty of individuals.
A smoking ban in pubs is not a violation of the rights of pubs, I agree... since pubs don't have rights. But only a moron would say that it doesn't contravene liberty. A smoking ban violates the rights of pub owners. It undermines their liberty to do as they choose with their property. Isn't this obvious?
Posted by Richard Garner at September 12, 2004 06:01 PM
Well smokers, you all stink, but I'll fight any form of health fascism that's chucked at you. ;)
Posted by Peter Sykes at September 12, 2004 08:01 PM
It is my choice.It is, but the reason (at least the officially stated one) for attempts at blanket smoking ban in pubs (and planes etc) is that they are workplaces for people who perhaps didn't choose to have lung cancer. A bartender can avoid poisoning his own liver even as he helps the patrons destroy theirs; the same does not hold for smoke.
That said, one of the reasons I enjoyed my recent stay in Paris so much was that I could smoke almost everywhere.
Posted by Bonzi at September 12, 2004 10:02 PM
A bartender can avoid poisoning his own liver even as he helps the patrons destroy theirs; the same does not hold for smoke
Really? Why is that? Are bartender coerced by law to work in places that allow smoking and risk being thrown in jail if they decide not to take the job? If a bartender agrees to work in a place that allows smoking, how is that depriving the bartender of choice?
Posted by Perry de Havilland at September 13, 2004 01:17 AM
for our school i was in the y9 debating team, and our proposition was "we should not ban smoking in public places." i have found this site very helpful and informative. i hope we win. thankyou x x x x x
Posted by A at November 4, 2004 06:53 PM
I'm wondering why some-one with a lil sense doesn't
open a smoking only venue, with only employees weho smoke?
Posted by Ian Dixon at January 2, 2005 11:51 AM
