Cut duty but what about the smoking ban?
Saturday, October 3, 2009 
Our presence in Brighton didn't go unnoticed. Telegraph columnist Simon Heffer writes:
An advertisement in Brighton reminded Labour that 52 pubs a week are closing in Britain. At the time of the last conference it was 36. The industry claims that 24,000 jobs have already been lost, and the cost to the Treasury in lost revenue is in the order of 3250 million a year. Aside from the recession, health fascism has played its part: it is no coincidence that the smoking ban preceded this rise in closures.
There is an obvious way for the Government to save pubs and jobs and increase tax revenues, and that is to cut the duty on drinks in pubs to the sort of levels enjoyed by our continental cousins, nearer the price in supermarkets. Of course, the health fascists would hate that too, so more communities must instead lose their focal point.
I agree with we should cut duty on drinks in pubs rather than increase the price of supermarket booze, but what about the smoking ban? It's a worry when even free market commentators like Heffer struggle to endorse an amendment to the law.
The good news is: our campaign is (slowly) getting noticed.
Simon Clark
Pub needs smoke ban lifted, says AWT (Henley Standard, 28 September)
Reader Comments (28)
The duty on a pint of beer is less than 40p. A reduction of a few pence, which is unlikely, is hardly going to get punters flooding back into pubs.
Price-reductions would be welcome, but would probably only bring a short-term surge.
Anyway, with government now seeing social-engineering as one of their core functions, such a duty-reduction for licensees is sure to be offset by an increase in duty on off-sales.
All just tinkering to try and deal with problems created by the politicians' last "solution", whilst making sure to punish those of us now deemed Unacceptable Persons on account of our refusal to get with the program.
A Barnsley Labour Councillor told me on twitter that I was not a victim of the smoking ban, I was on the wrong side of social evolution. Isn't it interesting how social control is reinterpreted.
The level of beer duty, and the relative price against the off-trade, are fairly insignificant reasons for the closure of pubs. The smoking ban isn't by any means the only reason, but it looms far larger. A duty cut or freeze might ease the pain a bit, though.
Duty is not the problem. Pubs have overheads - rents, rates, fuel, etc. If few people go into a pub and spend money, then the pub cannot survive. If people who smoke stop going into pubs, then pubs close. It is simple economics.
Anyone with any sense can see that the Smoking Ban (and I emphasise Ban) has been the killer.
There seems to be a Europe-wide intent to 'stop smoking'. The powers-that-be seem to think that, if there is a 'level playing field', then people will fall in line. But, people are not falling in line, are they?
We, the people of this country need a new government. We need a government which IS NOT the first to implement new EU regulations. We need a government which drags its feet.
The whole thing is so unutterably stupid.
"The whole thing is so unutterably stupid."
Yes, Junican - but The Stupid don't see it.
I think it's what we nowadays fashionably refer to as 'being in denial', isn't it ?
If (which God forbid) YOU were to get knocked over in town by a lorry travelling at 80 mph, on the wrong side, and driven by an inebriate, semi-blind psychopath - who'd just migrated (illegally) from Somalia - there'd still be some who would put the whole 'unfortunate incident' down to the camber in the road.
To suggest otherwise, moreover, would probably be construed as 'racist', and an unwarranted attack on people-with-learning-difficulties.
It's THAT kind of world we now inhabit.......
Or, to put it another way:
In The Kingdom of the Blind, the Two-Eyed Man is
a Heretic.
Burn him !
Well as I recall last time I enjoyed a pint and a cigarette in the pub, usually watching a band or playing music myself, the duty on that pint was high and supermarket drinks were still cheap.
Interesting that.
Yes, pity about Simon Heffer. He's usually pretty good and vocal on freedom of choice issues, but on the smoking ban issue he doesn't have the guts, wisdom or consistency to a make the case for its amendment more strongly. I am tempted to think that he is torn in his perspective: on one hand he sees the problem perfectly well, but on the other wants to be narrowly selfish to his own preferences.
Yes, pity about Simon Heffer. He's usually pretty good and vocal on freedom of choice issues, but on the smoking ban issue he doesn't have the guts, wisdom or consistency to a make the case for its amendment more strongly. I am tempted to think that he is torn in his perspective: on one hand he sees the problem perfectly well, but on the other wants to be narrowly selfish to his own preferences.
Another restriction that wasnt mentioned was the draconian drink driving laws copperfastening the smoking ban and the price of drink.
This draconian ban at its now ridiculously low level and falling, has been disastrous for rural pubs especially as well as the smoking ban.
The amount of house fires has increased substantially in rural areas since the smoking ban too.
But do our 'leaders' care about this.
Do they f..k
They would rather spin more weasel words about health and safety and the environment than ease up or repeal these crazy and jobsworth bans.
Maybe forest should change the logo on the save our pubs beer mats to LETS HAVE DEMOCRACY AND AMEND THE SMOKING BAN.
Just watched a piece on The Politics Show featuring Margot James, Tory PPC for Stourbridge. When the impact of the smoking ban was broached by a publican in her company, she responded by saying that the health benefits were even better than foreseen and cited the reduction in heart attacks as an example.
Perhaps Simon could send her some literature on the disreputable studies with an 'idiot's 'synopsis and set her straight.
Yes, things will be VERY different once all these radical Freedom-loving Tory PPCs get their arses on the seats vacated by Labour.
Just googled an image of the saintly Margot J - standing with friend in front of a poster of Chloe Smith.
Not.
Wet, wet, wet......................
And, what's more (drools 'The Observer'):
"James, 47, is one of the Tory MODERNISERS who cares about GREEN ISSUES and the NHS, promising to safeguard the welfare of ASYLUM-SEEKERS and end the party's under-representation of female MPs by introducing ALL-WOMEN lists.
She is no militant GAY campaigner, but she has always been open about her personal life (she is in a 10-year relationship with fashion stylist Jay Hunt, 38, co-host of the BBC makeover programme Would Like To Meet........"
Well, I'm REALLY excited now.
You can practically SMELL the Revolution......
What I don't understand, Martin, is why people don't understand how the demonisation affects smokers, how awful it is to be viewed with the scorn and contempt that HMG has encouraged (or is it just me being hypersensitive?) You'd thhink that Margot James would remember what that felt like before our society became tolerant of homosexuality and wouldn't wish it on anyone else.
'God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are...' Perhaps no drug can compare with the buzz obtained from looking down on someone. It also contains a (false) sense of safety, maybe immortality. Oh dear, I'm in danger of looking down on people who look down on me. (Biblical reference: Luke 18.11). Best wishes, Joyce.
Ah, but you see, Joyce:
We're NOT like Homosexuals, Jews etc for one simple reason: we can STOP being smokers.
This is what makes the Antis feel so morally superior to those ghastly Nazis that people like me keep 'banging on' (to use a Cameronism) about.
They PERSECUTE because they CARE.
Consider, for example, THIS piece of gratuitous self-justification from Joanna Mawtus - the 'creative director' of the agency that gave us THAT video:
"People have been seeing stop smoking ads all their lives and EVERYONE KNOWS it's bad for them. It's old news...
Unless we give people a NEW PERSPECTIVE on it, they're NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY NOTICE. We think this idea does that."
Well, Joanna, I suggest you try THIS 'concept' on for size:
We HAVE listened, but we DON'T AGREE with you !!
Got that - you self-important, sanctimonious cow ?
Or do all those little whirring cogs and wheels inside your 'creative' brain find it hard to deal with such simplicity ?
Next Brilliant Idea:
COMPULSORY attendance (enforced by a Magistrate) at an Anti-Smoking Clinic.
Note to Mr Cameron:
No, Dave - THAT was a JOKE !
A bit like the Tory Party these days...........
There are so many highways and bye-ways involved in the whys and wherefores of the smoking ban that one's mind becomes very confused.
It is very hard to arrive a some conclusion which brings together into one strand of understanding all the various odd ideas which arise in connection with the smoking ban. For example, why should a person who never goes to pubs (never ever, of which there are many) be the least bit bothered about smoking in pubs?
It has taken me quite a while to understand. We posters, as a group, are gradually beginning to understand.
THE PROBLEM IS THE NEW RELIGION OF HEALTHISM.
This new religion (which has, in fact, been around for some time) has, quite suddenly, been adopted by politicians as the best religion ever. All persons must be forced to embrace the new religion, whether they like it or not. The Archbishops and Bishops of the new religion are Professors and Doctors of Medicine. They are not to be denied. Our current Archbishop is Sir Liam Donaldson.
I think that the REAL Archbishops of Religion, eg the Archbishop of Canterbury , should be up in arms about this heresy. Why are they not?
The new religion does not permit free, grown up people to decide for themselves. All must toe the line.
Our job is to reveal the new religion as the fraud which it is.
Not easy and may take some time.
Well hopefully soon the recession will be over, but i bet that would not bring a storm of customers back into pubs and clubs, as Specky said "the last time he enjoyed a cigarette and a pint in a pub, the duty was high on that pint and supermarkets was selling cheap alcohol", but the pubs and clubs was still opened and business was still ok, they were not closing down at approx 36 a week, that was untill this government brought in there dictatorship smoking ban.
Junican -
A new religion ?
Got it in one - but I (and many others) have been making THAT point for ages.
And the same goes for the whole Global Warming/Climate Change nonsense.
And 'Europe', of course.
To some extent, ALL have helped to fill the void in many people's lives created by the decline of both Christianity AND Socialism/Communism.
And, given that ANY ideology and MOST religions offer some relief from the burden of intellectual autonomy and dispassionate examination of the FACTS, it's no surprise that WE have so much trouble persuading THEM that many of their assumptions are just PLAIN WRONG (as we can prove).
If the belief FEELS right - that is sufficient.
And - like ALL fundamentalists - the Antis and the Global Warmers and the Euro-Fanatics tend to bridle at any serious enquiry by 'outsiders'. They feel snug and safe in the embrace of a Comfort Blanket which insulates them against the chill of an Uncertain World - and YOU want to take it from them.
It is a form of self-imposed Infantilism - which they then PROJECT onto to us Un-believers, by treating US as Children (who NEED to be schooled and scolded and PUSHED onto the Path of Salvation).
And - sadly - from cradle to grave - MOST Human Beings never ENTIRELY leave the Nursery. No matter how 'intelligent' they seem.
Growing up can be painful.
As can the fight for Freedom..............
How To Brainwash A Nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk&feature=player_embedded#
Isn't this what ASH and WHO are doing? Denormalisation bit by bit?
Margot James has probably been sent propaganda by ASH, as I presume have all MPs on a regular basis. The only way to combat this is by emailing her directly, pointing her to some of the many articles, for example by Chris Snowdon or Michel Siegel, which describe the true outcomes. MPs get worried when they receive a large number of letters about topics such as the smoking ban.
"Denormalisation bit by bit?"
That's it, chas - the Incremental Approach.
Slowly, but surely, our Masters are removing the Oxygen of Freedom.
One morning, people will wake up choking.
And wonder why.
It won't be the Secondhand Smoke, though..........
"We're NOT like Homosexuals, Jews etc for one simple reason: we can STOP being smokers" - Martin.
Martin,
I have thought about this before and I asked myself the question - would discrimination against someone be any more or less justified if, for example, people COULD change their skin colour? The answer is it makes no difference - it is still discrimination! So why do people think it ok to discriminate against smokers just because they can stop smoking? Even if Rosa Parks could have changed her skin colour at will, and stop being black for the duration of
a bus ride - it would not justify the disgusting discrimination against her.
ASH – stands for Actively Seeking Hitler.
NHS – stands for Nominating Hitler Standards.
CRUK – stands for CRUK of the matter.
BHF – stands for British Hitler Foundation.
Fredrik -
Yes, it's ALL morally indefensible, of course.
To discriminate in this fashion against Smokers is as nauseatingly improper as to discriminate against Mars Bars-eaters.
Even the Antis sensed this themselves. Hence the re-adoption from National Socialist Germany of the brilliant fiction of 'Passive Smoking':
Harm yourself, by all means - but don't harm OTHERS.
And so we are now at the position where 'Smokefree England' can declare on its website that:
"There is NO risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
A statement of SUCH palpably unscientific idiocy that one wonders how ANYONE could have the nerve to write it.
But WHO - in public life - has the nerve to challenge it ?
Smokers, it seems, have become the Well-Poisoners of the 21st Century.
Neatly side-stepping the question of Freedom, the Antis have now succeeded in elevating an issue of Public Health to one of Public Morality.
Brilliant.
And just as (doubtless) a great many otherwise decent Germans 'regretted' the treatment of the Jews, but recognised that it was for the Good Of The Race, so a great many non-smokers regret OUR treatment, but.................etc etc.
Meanwhile. I tentatively suggest a new motto for the Anti-Smoking crusaders:
Frischluft Macht Frei !
It'd look great over the doctor's surgery door.......
Martin V
When I highlighted the NEW RELIGION as I did above, I knew that it has already been mentioned many times before. What I was trying to do was to clarify our ideas and so understand better.If we have a better understanding of what motivates people, perhaps we can find a better way to counter their arguements.
I fully agree with what you say about environmentalism - another new religion. Dogma, 'how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?', "A NEW CURE FOR CANCER", shouts the Telegraph (maybe in 20 years time - good news for the reaserchers' income), etc.
Absolutely correct that this new religion of healthism is the new 'convienent truth' and comfort blanket for the antis.
Since the invasion of the Health
carpetbaggers/Global Warmers/Climate Changers/EU and not forgetting the Green Cultists, all carried out by stealth in plain sight, that people's brains have been scrambled to an extent never experienced before, with the result that they thought the only way to make sense of it all and keep control of their lives was to adopt the lies and scaremonering of the health nazis and live in the safe ignorance of the comfort blanket, thus giving them the opportunity to take the moral high ground and make themselves feel surperior and law abiding citizens by pointing the finger at us filthy smokers/drinkers/drink drivers and by trying to save us from ourselves.
Its time all these dumbos were enlightened and put back on the right track.
After all nazism didnt last either.
A radio report yesterday said that the tobacco company Philip Morris was going to sue over the banning of cigarette displays in contravention of EU law.
Good one dont you think, use the bullyboys law to win your case.
The MEP that missed that loophole must have been out golfing or on a junket that day!