Northern Ireland falls to the tobacco taliban
Monday, April 30, 2007 
I was in Dublin the day that Ireland banned smoking in all enclosed public places; Edinburgh the day that Scotland did likewise; and Cardiff when Wales followed suit earlier this month. The prospect of being in Belfast to witness the surrender of Northern Ireland to the tobacco taliban was just too much so today I shall be commenting (on stations such as U105, Downtown Radio and BBC Radio Ulster) either from the comfort of our Cambridge office or our local, smoker-friendly pub.
To put today's events in perspective: it's not the end of the world but it does represent a small loss of liberty for a substantial number of people. Last week, in the Belfast Newsletter, Forest's Neil Rafferty summed up our position when he wrote:
I'm sure many people in Northern Ireland think the smoking ban is a great idea. Finally, you can go to a pub without it smelling of smoke (although you'll now have the triple menace of flatulence, cheap aftershave and deep fat fryers). But do all the pubs and clubs have to be smoke-free? Why does every one have to be the same?
Of course many people do not like to be bothered by tobacco smoke and there is absolutely no reason why they should be. That's why Forest advocated a mixture of well-ventilated smoking and non-smoking venues so that everyone could have a choice - including bar workers. And we know the majority agree with us.
We're not saying that we want to turn the clock back to the era when smokers had it all their own way. But we do believe that everyone should have some measure of choice. That's what living in a free country is all about.
BTW, the smoking ban was one of the first issues that Sinn Fein and the Unionists actually agreed upon. Nice to know that smokers have, inadvertently, united those two warring factions.
Reader Comments (25)
I live in Northern Ireland and have seen the damage done to Southern businesses. Publicans are genuinely worried but again no one seems to be speaking out. Smokers make up the majority of people who regularly visit pubs and I for one am voting with my feet. I am building a bar at home and have a pool table installed. Since publicans did not fight for our rights, why should we help them survive. All smokers should immediately stop going to pubs and restaurants and see if the fascist anti smoking brigade fill the void. Highly unlikely because they will now be setting their targets on some other minority.
Michael, you are dead on the money. That is EXACTLY what all those opposed to the smoking ban should do - give up the pub. Going to the pub and not trying to light up is quickly spun into "support" by the anti movement and used to justify further restrictions as are the smoker congregating outside.
It's all very well Forest advocating a mixture of non smoking and so called 'well ventilated' smoking venues. Prior to the smoking bans coming in there have been very few non smoking pubs. Despite 76% of people being non smokers the licensed trade just seems to largely ignore that. Well done to independently minded MPs coming to the rescue of the majority in last year's free vote on this issue.
As for the idea that 'well ventilated' venues are the best solution - most smoking pubs, restaurants and cafes, even before the free commons vote last year, completely failed to demonstrate this. There must be between 50 and 70 pubs in my own home town in Wales yet no matter which one I visited before the 1st April it was absolutely guaranted that my clothes, my hair and my person would stink afterwards of smoke.
I am absolutely delighted that the majority now have the freedom in Wales to go to any pub, club or restaurant without being exposed to second hand smoke. I am also happy that the minority who do smoke still have the opportinity to do so, outside on the patio. Result - everybody's happy all round.
Robert, whilst the shift from smoking to non-smoking was slow going, it WAS happening. Restaurants were leading the way. The problem with pubs was a smoking ban corresponded with a drop in takings as smokers went elsewhere and non-smoker didn't come flocking out of the woodwork in support.
I find it laughable that you call being kicked outside into potentially adverse weather conditions an "opportunity". It is anything but. It is heavy handed legislation pure and simple for something that's SUCH a health risk they had to actually fiddle the way they estimate risk in STILL come up with a risk factor that is considered statistically insignificant for these types of studies.
Clearly you don't care about being lied to since the results work in your favour. I'm sure the thousands of people who've lost their jobs, hundreds who've lost their business and not to mention the rural communities who've lost their only bingo hall take great confort that their loss if offset with you not having to wash your clothes after a night out.
I live and work in Northern Ireland and I have concerns about the enforcement of this legislation. Working at one of the main borough councils as I do, I have learned today that an area of the car park has been set aside for members of staff to smoke. Needless to say, the council have now got a no smoking policy not just in there buildings but anywhere on the premises and members of the public are met at the gate with a notice to remind them of this. Members of the security staff who are not employed by the council and work in a security lodge (which is not a public place) are being forced to abide by the new regulations despite the fact that they do not get a break of any sort for a 12 hour period. Something which is in clear contravention of EU Laws. How, may I ask can council enforcement officers deal with those that break the law when turning a blind eye to there own staff.
The fact is that smokers are more likely to be regular pub goers than non smokers. It is more profitable to have a smoking pub than a smoke free one. Businesses will go bust and jobs will be lost. Why are we not given the right to have a smoking bar with huge warnings like on cigarette packets, a ban on children and smoking staff? It is because it would be the busiest bar in town?
You can't seem to get through to the Robert Evanses of this world.
Why cannot SOME pubs and restaurants allow smoking?
Or do you (as I strongly suspect) see the total ban as some sort of revenge?
There seems to be a fundamental misconception that the public health lobby care at all about the well-being of pubs. I will not be going to the pub as much when the smoking ban is enforced in England but I won't view it as a form of resistance so much as a personal choice. The anti-smokers will fiddle the figures whatever the effect on the hospitality industry regardless of the true impact but even when the evidence is unequivocal -as in Ireland and Scotland - do not expect them to shed any tears when pubs and clubs close down. Health fanatics are not big pub-goers and alcohol is the next target for their crusade. Do you think they will see fewer people drinking in pubs as a sacrifice or a bonus?
Nigel Hall is right. Also it appears non smokers have a shortage of soap and washing powder. I shower daily and only wear a shirt once. This is not because of smoking but basic hygiene. Non smokers complain about having to wash themselves and their clothes after being to a pub. That must explain why the pubs in Southern Ireland stink of cheap perfume and body odours. Once the non smokers got their ban they no longer had to keep themselves or their clothes clean.
The new smoking laws in enclosed public places need not precipitate an angry war of words between smokers and non smokers.
Smokers do have the right to smoke - most people would accept that. But the non smoking majority also have the moral right to go to any public restaurant or pub and not be exposed to second hand smoke. The whole basis of the new smoking laws is that of public health.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that coming away from the pub smelling of cigarette smoke was the principal issue - it isn't.
So far as the evidence and proof is concerned about how passive smoking can damage people's health most people haven't got the time or inclination to go trawling through scientific papers on this. But if all of the major health bodies are telling us that passive smoking brings with it a risk of cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses then most people appear to accept that.
I'm not sure if the tobacco industry are still in denial about whether smoking causes lung cancer (they were for a long time) but the fact that 90% of lung cancer patients are smokers is circumstantial evidence enough for me.
I accept that smokers have the right to smoke but this does need to be balanced against the rights of the majority. And I don't believe that these two rights are equal.
As time goes by most smokers will come to accept that stepping outside for a few minutes to have a cigarette, before returning indoors to rejoin the party, is a very small loss of freedom indeed. With hindsight will we all remember this issue as a 'storm in a teacup'?
Very small loss of liberty? What about the property rights of pub owners?
I quote, "As time goes by most smokers will come to accept that stepping outside for a few minutes to have a cigarette, before returning indoors to rejoin the party, is a very small loss of freedom indeed."
And what happens when you find the pub gardens, patios and open-air restaurant seating areas full of Dirty Smokers? Take, for example, in summer when the plum seats in the evening sun are taken by the evil fume-throwers?
I know! Move the goalposts, in true lobbiest fashion, and ban smoking outside/within range of/sitting down - it's only a small freedom to lose. Robert, how many 'small freedoms' can people lose to Simon Says politics before you concede freedom is being sacrificed at the altar of social engineering?
Robert, What makes you think that smokers will simply step outside for a smoke and then go back into the party?
My experience, on the very few times I now go to the pub, is that the party is outside and smokers occasionally step back into the pub to buy a drink.
For me staying in with friends is the new going out. The main people I feel sorry for are the licensees who have invested their own capital in a business and social venue only to find that health 'experts' funded from a massive money trough have incestuously created their own secure futures and the sale smoking cessation services and products.
What is the best advert for smoking? Should it have been kept inside four adult walls with continued education & encouragement to quit or pushed outside in the shape of happy groups in full view of impressionable young people with missionary zeal preaching the evils of what should be banned? -- No contest.
Whatever reasons are given for this ban legislation and exaggeration are not the best way to reduce smoking rates.
Robert has either swallowed or is a party to the false dichotomy the government was pretending was the actual debate; smokers have a right to smoke and non smokers have a right to not have to breathe it. This is not what the legislation is about. Smokers have not lost the right to smoke in pubs and other places. They never had such a right unless it was granted them by the owner of that property, such as a pub landlord, who alone had the right to say whether smoking was permitted or not on his premises. This is a property right and it is this property right alone that has been taken away. The right to breathe clean air has never been an issue as it isn't really a right at all but merely a preference. It is like saying I have a right to never hear the word "stilton". If I avoid cheese counters and the media I stand a reasonable chance of not encountering the word but it is ludicrous to want to ban the use of the word even if it "caused" me to go into convulsions at it's mention.
The idea that the pub trade would ignore 76% of it's potential market needs to explain why those nasty horrible capitalist who are only out to make a buck didn't seize the opportunity of putting most of the competition out of business by catering exclusively to non smokers and mounting a big TV campaign to let them all know about it. Could it be that only the likes of ASH have the entrepreneurial talent to spot such an opportunity?
And then that old chestnut about "Big" (how big is it now?) Tobacco being in denial that smoking causes lung cancer. This from a guy who admits to not having studied the science in any great depth but naively trusting the beyond question honor of the very groups who receive a huge amount of funding through their tobacco opposition. See the case McTear v Imperial Tobacco. Don't just read the Guardian and BBC reports on it but read the actual judge's opinion. The very brief summary is this; the ASH funded Mrs McTear's legal team had to prove three things for the case to go with them; 1. That smoking causes lung cancer. 2. That Mr McTear's lung cancer was caused by smoking. 3. That Mr McTear's lung cancer was caused by smoking Imperial Tobacco's products. This case happened within the last three years. When it went to court it was big news all over the media. When Imperial Tobacco announced that part of it's defence was to state that the theory that smoking caused lung cancer had not been proven the media went into screaming fits of political correctness. When the case was complete and the judge returned his findings the media was very quiet. If you weren't waiting to see the outcome you probably didn't know it had happened. The fact of the relative silence of the media will probably inform you as to the outcome but read it all the same.
"But the non smoking majority also have the moral right to go to any public restaurant or pub and not be exposed to second hand smoke."
I'm sorry... moral right? What exactly does that mean and why do they have this right? And why does it supercede the ACTUAL property rights of the pub or restaurant owner?
I find it incredulous that even now smokers would cast doubt on whether smoking causes cancer:
http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64
Truely the addictive powers of this drug is grossly underestimated.
I shake my head in despair when I hear the comment.
'Now I can go to the pub without going home smelling of smoke'.
Stop and think non-smokers.
Without the smokers patronising the pubs they will be shutting down and then where will you go?
My three local pubs are already turning into gastro pubs.
There isn't the patronage for three pubs in this area so two are likely to shut.
Wez, I've seen the same near where my parents live (in Scotland), where a two pub village became, within 6 months of the ban, a 1 pub village, it's been sold to developers and 7 months on it's still lying empty.
We have had the smoking ban in my town in Ontario, Canada, for over seven years.
No bingo halls or bowling alleys any more.
Each year fewer places to go to eat or drink.
The result of the ban has been bankruptcies and closures. For owners there has been no upside, only huge financial loss. For the patrons, higher prices and fewer places to go.
It has majorly hit our tourist trade and economy.Do we go to the pub and nip outside for a smoke? No, we stay home. The end result is a huge social loss,as smokers and non smokers used to meet for a chat and now they don't. Make no mistake,this has divided people and caused more heartache than world war II,
because it really is international.
I am truly astonished that England has launched a smoking ban. Having only been here for a short time, I love all of the pubs I have gone to. From the old time to the new and trendy. Coming here as a non-smoker it never has bothered me one bit. If I do not want to be around smokers, gee... I go somewhere else...big deal! It is my choice... what has happened to common sense and choice? Government will never be able to legislate common sense. It is every smokers RIGHT TO SMOKE as it is their right to vote into office whomever they wish. Who will they discriminate against next???? I would be worried. I do understand the NHS standpoint as well. Our insurance companies in the States are fighting the same thing, but honestly people who don't eat right their entire life and end up with heart disease will they one day be the next group? Where does it stop? Now, my boyfriend and I have debated this topic for the last couple days....his question.....As a smoker, if he is denied service by the NHS does he get his 25 odd years of money he has paid into it back? Here is a link for a small town diner in the state I am from who decided to fight the smoking ban...they decided to change their restaurant into a club and charge $1 dollar to join. More power to them...I hope they win the battle.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070404/LOCAL0403/704040495/1131/LOCAL0403
A lot of people do not realise that the traditional way of life for a lot of people is being changed overnight. There are very many public houses and private clubs where people traditionally enjoy a quiet drink and smoking cigars and cigarettes. I come from an area in West Yorkshire where, for a lot of people, smoking is synonymous with drinking. My local pub (a 'wet pub') has a lovely non-smoking room which only seems to be well-used on Friday nights. On evenings during the rest of the week, most of the people who spend money on more than a pint of beer/lager are the ones who smoke and the non-smoking room is usually empty. We do not have the climate for a cafe society to flourish and I can only anticipate that once the summer is over, many public houses and clubs will suffer loss of revenue and many will eventually close down. Another negative aspect is that the smoking issue has already started causing friction and arguments amongst people who normally get along with each other very well. Smokers are now being regarded by others as inferior beings regardless of whatever skills and attributes they demonstrate in their everyday lives. I, for one, foresee a lot of negative consequences of this blanket ban - closure of public houses and clubs, loss of revenue for places and, for many, the loss of enjoyment.
David; I went to the link you so graciously provided. I read it. I'm wondering what your point was....
Irrespective of whether smokers go outside for a puff the fascists still have them in their sights. Do not think that a beer garden or roof terrace will mean you can enjoy a drink and a smoke. Here in Ireland the antis are now trying to force smokers away even from the designated areas when the weather is good. They sneer at us when it is cold and wet but when it is fine [like now] they want the outside areas for themselves and the smokers moved even further away. The so called health brigade agree with this policy but do not give a damn about anyone even the elderly and infirm being subjected to the elements when the weather is awful.
Very well expressed, Michael! It is becoming increasingly clear to me that people who normally get along well with each other, are now becoming discriminatory and even aggressive towards each other. This is starting to happen in England (before the ban) and things will get worse after 1st July. I, for one, would not like to be an enforcement officer in the former mining areas of West and South Yorkshire! Well, there should be plenty of fun and entertainment!
what people have to think about with the fourthcoming ban is the right to and not to smoke i for one respect the right of non-smokers and smokers alike but when is all this going to end ive seen stories of staff being sacked for smoking in car parks (which Is Not Hurting Anybody except for the smoker)ive seen reports that ash want to ban smoking in the owners own house and car when are people going to wake up to what is really happening here and why is it that ash seem to be more powerful than joe public can ash give us any prove of passive smoking the answer is no one thing people should really worry about is the so called smoke police why would a nation need these people what happened to the local police to police a law that goverment pass as they always do