Publican: smoking made my clothes stink
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 I didn't expect much from yesterday's Pubwatch meeting and it lived down to my expectations. Everyone was friendly enough but for every publican who wanted an amendment to the smoking ban there was another who said there was no going back. "Smoking made my clothes stink," complained one. "I support the ban."
Another was concerned about the reaction of his staff, especially those who started work after the ban was introduced and have never worked in an environment where people are allowed to smoke. What would happen if they fell ill? Could they sue him?
Interesting question. Until now the evidence concerning the effects of secondhand smoke has made it very difficult for plaintiffs to win such cases in court. Nevertheless, that wouldn't stop some people trying to win an out-of-court settlement - knowing that some defendants would pay up rather than risk an even more expensive court case - so you can see why some publicans might be worried.
What they seemed to ignore however was the point I made at the very start of my presentation. If they want their pub to be smoke-free that is their choice. Good luck to them. I don't have a problem with that. But just because they don't want people lighting up on their premises doesn't mean that every other pub and club should be the same.
Truth is, those publicans who don't want people to smoke on their premises aren't interested in choice because they know damn well that if there isn't a "level playing field" they risk losing some of their customers to the pub or club down the road that would allow smoking (if it could).
Such self-interest is understandable. Everyone feels threatened by competition. I just wish they'd be a bit more open and honest about it.
Yesterday's meeting wasn't a complete waste of time. There was some support for our Save Our Pubs & Clubs initiative but what it really taught me is how careful we have to be when we talk about changing ("amending") the legislation.
Many (most?) people see this issue in black and white. You're either for the ban, or you're against it. In their eyes, campaigning against the ban is the same as arguing for a return to tens of thousands of smoke-filled pubs and clubs. The notion of a halfway house - well-ventilated separate smoking rooms, for example - doesn't seem to register.
Somehow we have to overcome this perception. Starting now.
Reader Comments (18)
Can they hear themselves? "Smoking made my clothes stink". Don't you just want to push them up against the wall and tell them, loudly and slowly that they do not have to allow smoking in their pub. Are they completely thick or can't they bring themselves to admit that smoking pubs would be far more popular than non-smoking pubs. To get around this "level playing field" problem, which is a big obstacle to any relaxing of the ban, my solution is to auction a limited number, of smoking licences to the highest bidders; not ideal in a free society, but maybe a way forward.
Can they hear themselves? "Smoking made my clothes stink". Don't you just want to push them up against the wall" says Jon.
To be perfectly honest with you Jon, I want to do more than push them up against a wall.
I wonder what these poor "darlings" would do if ever they had to enter the "real world"? Can you imagine coal miners waving their hands in front of their faces and saying how the coal dust makes their vests stink, and "ooh I say, I just can't do a thing with my hair with all this dust in it".
How about people who work in garages, I bet the stink of diesel lingers on their overalls for so long that they just cannot make it on time to their ballet lessons in the evening.
As for our armed forces, can you imagine them in Afghanistan, "I say Sarge, the smell of death on my uniform really makes me feel sick, can I borrow something of yours for tonight's regimental dance?"
The publicans and others who spout this type of rubbish, need to get out there in the real world and smell the real smells. This is life boys and girls, not a practise run for a job in a hairdressers.
Jon, I follow your thinking but disagree with it.
Putting special licenses up for auction will cost money, (obviously), but then the cost of those special licenses will have to be recovered somehow. Guess who will end up paying? Why should we pay even more money to someone, to anyone, for the privilege of smoking indoors like normal human beings? I think we already pay more than enough.
The right approach is to say to landlords and landladies-"You decide". I think you will find that a significant number of pubs and clubs will elect to remain smoke free. The market will find its feet again and will stabilise.
I genuinely cannot see us returning to every pub and club allowing smoking. If this spiteful ban has taught us anything it is that there is a need for some non-smoking venues.
As Simon says, well-ventilated pubs/rooms will suffice. We have argued for ventilation and air filtration since day one. It took us a while to stop saying that it was needed for safety (to remove those minuscule carcinogens) and change tack and say loudly & clearly that ventilation adds to the comfort of all.
It would be nice if we could smoke everywhere again, but it not realistic.
We just need a little compromise, and we have demonstrated for over 40 years that we are capable of compromise.
But is the other side?
Many (most?) people see this issue in black and white. You're either for the ban, or you're against it. In their eyes, campaigning against the ban is the same as arguing for a return to tens of thousands of smoke-filled pubs and clubs. The notion of a halfway house - well-ventilated separate smoking rooms, for example - doesn't seem to register.
On the button. I point out this exact point on a daily basis, but it just doesn't sink in. It's stunning how very dim people seem to be in this regard.
I'm of the opinion that there is an element of fear involved. Some are so desperately clinging to their beloved ban, that they fear that any erosion of total prohibition, however slight, could lead to a total collapse. Hence their inability (or unwillingness) to consider any compromise whatsoever. Even when it is clear that such options wouldn't inconvenience them in the slightest.
The upside is that for there to be such fear, there has to be grounds for it. If, as we are constantly told, there is unquestionable support for the blanket ban, and 'smokefree' in general, then surely there is no danger in talking about possible amendment options.
It suggests, to me anyway, that ban fans are a lot more worried about how shaky support for the ban really is, than they care to admit.
I think we need to get across the message that we accept that we do NOT have the right to smoke anywhere but we DO have the right to smoke SOMEWHERE.
This issue is not just about pubs and licences. What about those of us who like cafes and restaurants? Is anything being done there to welcome smokers inside instead of forcing them out into the cold, wet and often filthy places?
This is ultimately about fairness, tolerance, and discrimination. Once it is taken on board that discrimination is NOT just wrapped up in race, colour or creed, then we might just begin to get somewhere.
I'm so fed up of hearing about smelly clothes. I haven't heard a single person say anything else in defence of this ban - not even "I feel so much healthier since smoking was banned in my pub"
Silly me. I thought it was health and not the smell that forced this legislation through! Smell was raised as an issue years ago when the antis were moaning about how smoking should be banned in public places and it was thrown out on the grounds that it was not enough to take away the right to freedom of choice for the individual.
The legacy of this (Nu)Labour Govt is that our country is a lot less tolerant today than it ever was. Discrimination against a minority group is now thought perfectly acceptable and people are positively encouraged to spread their fear, hate and lies with the aim of socially cleansing people like us from society!
I think this was a fair comment from the non smoking landlord of my dad's local. I paraphrase. "Since the ban my wardrobe does not smell of smoke and I will not have to decorate as often but I wasn't bothered about people smoking because trade was better".
Jon -
You say:
"..my solution is to auction a limited number, of smoking licences to the highest bidders...."
Not a bad idea - given the circumstances. The problem, of course, is that it would obviously work against the smaller (ie poorer) pubs.
Some time ago, I suggested on Little Kerry's Blog that a local LOTTERY might not be bad idea.
Every pub-owner would be entitled to play, and of all those who chose to do so, HALF would 'win' - and a Smoking Licence issued for a specified period (say, two years).
So, that would guarantee that at least HALF of all the pubs in a given area were 'smoke-free' -maybe more, the final proportion depending on the number of applicants.
This would have obvious advantages:
First - EVERYONE would have a CHOICE - including the staff. No, the 'de-normalisers' wouldn't be happy - but who cares about THEM, anyway ?
Second - it would soon become apparent, without recourse to all those phony 'opinion polls' commissioned by the Antis, just how 'popular' a Smoking Ban was in reality (people voting with their feet etc).
Third - it would give all pub-owners, big and small an equal chance.
Of course, it may mean that one would have to change one's local occasionally - but surely that would be preferable to a permanent ban ?
Not a perfect solution, either, I admit - but it's one that might just work.
Views, anyone ?
I remember local radio being at Nick Hogan's pub on the first day of the ban (where he still allowed people freedom to choose). One of the F2C members was on air, and she said, "If one in four people smoke then one in four pubs should be able to allow smoking".
All the reasons you give Martin, which would show the truth to the way people feel etc, are the exact reasons your plan would never be accepted.
What would be the point of the antis spending all our money on lies and propaganda for the last two years at least, just to have it all destroyed by someone like you who wants to give the public fair play?
Fair play isn't part of the antis game, you should know that Martin.
Apart from your plan, I am getting fed up with hearing others on here, saying such things as, "we cannot hope for the law to be overturned", and "we should be allowed to smoke in hermetically sealed rooms (or similar)", and "no one wants to go back to smoke filled pubs".
Well I for one, would absolutely love to go back to smoke filled pubs. I also think the law should be completely overturned, and as for being shut in a room to smoke, NO WAY! We have had two years of being turned out into the rain and cold like animals in order to smoke. What I would like to see now, is "service is resumed as normal" and all those who do not want to smoke, should either go outside, or they should have a hermetically sealed room set aside for them, NOT US.
I know my auction idea isn't ideal but, given that any Government and a vociferous minority of the electorate would now insist on there being a proportion, somewhere greater than one half, of pub accommodation being non-smoking. Smoking rooms would not work, as small pubs could not provide a mixture of smoking and non-smoking. Some would inevitably be forced to go non-smoking and so would go bust. Pub owners would not support a lottery because of the uncertainty. The fear of losing is too great. Losing after two years would be like relegation from the football Premiership. An auction has no downside, except pub owners would build in a small smokers' surcharge into their prices. The great thing about an auction is that the losers are not resentful: they forced the winners to pay top dollar - on the cusp of too much. It makes a level playing field. I'm assuming that the bids would be per square foot. Of course there are problems: measures would have to be taken to stop pubcos buying all the licences in a particular area by cross-subsidy. Another problem is that any Government could arbitarily cut the number of licences in the future. Regarding cafes and restaurants: these should be treated the same way.
To get around this "level playing field" problem, which is a big obstacle to any relaxing of the ban, my solution is to auction a limited number, of smoking licences to the highest bidders; not ideal in a free society, but maybe a way forward. - jon
Does this "level playing field" problem apply elsewhere? If there has to be strict equality in respect of smoking, why not in respect other things as well?
My local Indian restaurant, the Delhi Belly, serves up a variety of curry dishes, while the Italian restaurant next door, Cosa Nostra, serves up just pizzas and spaghetti, while the Greek restaurant on the other side, Feta Complit, serves only mutton and rice and cheese and salad. Surely in the interests of a "level playing field" this sort of thing has to stop, and they should all serve up exactly the same dishes, which are inclusive of all manner of cookery. An example of resulting 'inclusive' cuisine might be vegetarian curry pizzas on a bed of garlic and rice, all washed down with child-friendly non-alcoholic ouzo. If some restaurants are allowed to get away with cooking food that people actually want to eat, other restaurants will lose custom, and that would obviously be unfair.
Or can we get around this "problem" by auctioning licences to allow a few restaurants to sell just pizzas or curries, so making them pay through the nose for the privilege of enjoying this sort of elitist practice?
Or maybe the whole notion of any sort of "level playing field" should just be dismissed as nonsensical drivel?
Having read the recent comments in The Publican, I'm not surprised at the level of debate at the Pubwatch event.I do however find it mindboggling that publicans go along with this oppression just because thier clothes smell! Do they really wish to go bankrupt? As someone has pointed out very eloquently on the Guardian article replies, what about Mechanics, Coal Miners, Chefs etc. perhaps we should ban all occupations that make people's clothes smell.
In regard to the 'auction or Lottery' suggestions, one of the Anti's said the other day that smokers should have to apply for a licence - costing £10 per year, with complex paperwork to fill in as well, he thought this would deter people!
My thought on this idea was that the logical step was - if individuals can apply for a smoking licence, why not businesses also?
Peter -
I agree with you absolutely, of course.
Nonetheless, we have now to deploy the same sort of TACTICAL 'subtlety' that the Antis have used over the past two decades - but without the haranguing, the bullying, the lying, the junk science etc.
And you're quite right, of course, about the Antis' resistance to any notion of Fair Play. But it's not THEM whose support I'm looking for - but that of the wider general public.
Perhaps we should (initially, at least) seek an amendment to the legislation with regard to private clubs. Even some of my not-very-sympathetic non-smoking friends confess that the application of these idiotic laws to THEM was wholly unjustifiable and irrational.
But whatever 'solutions' WE may care to suggest, we still need to have some sympathetic politicians (of the 'elected' variety) on our side.
Sadly, I'm not aware of even ONE who has come out publicly to condemn all this oppressive idiocy.
Are you ?
They can't ALL be gutless AND irrational AND self-serving - can they ?
(Now stop smirking, you lot at the back !!)
It always worries me when I hear the idea mooted of a sealed smoking room, and if there have ever been any rumours about a possible ammendment in the pubs and clubs, this is usually what it is. It reminds me of when my local airport (Manchester) scrapped the smoking area in the departure lounge, and sent smokers to designated rooms. There was ventilation, but smokers crammed into a room created air thick with smoke, rather like the badly ventilated public bars in small pubs long ago. It was uncomfortable. It was also extremely humiliating.
Sealed smoking rooms. Sounds like something from Nazi Germany, and certainly NOT an option for anyone who has any knowledge of this farce.
This law is based on the lies about ETS, which can be easily demostrated.THAT IS ALL..
It doesn't matter about smelly clothes or personal preferences, without these lies, there is no basis for this law.
This should be rammed home at every meeting Forest is invited to attend, as until this con has been exposed, there will be no change. How can there be if they believe it to be a killer to the public and employees. It needs to be addressed before the complete destruction of the British pub/club.
Those publicans/customers who love the ban because their clothing/hair/shit doesn't stink anymore, and who therefore would not want any amendment, need poking with a large stick until they get it into their thick skulls that smoking was NEVER compulsary. They had a choice whether to allow it on their premises or not. They will have the choice again when the ban is relaxed. I couldn't really give a damn about their businesses suffering if they choose not to cater for their smoking clientelle. Market forces and all that. As for the sealed room/special licences ideas, all that is needed for the comfort of everyone is decent ventilation. No-one is campaigning, or ever did, for the right to smoke on someone elses property.
I resent the fact that this legislation has made me a criminal. I want to be able to smoke a cigarette at my desk, in my office, when I want, without having to break the stupid law in order to do so. It is no-one else's business as far as I am concerned, but knowing what a tittle-tattle society we are encouraged to be, our office outer door remains locked throughout the day, lest an unwelcome caller should sully our happy workplace.
I can't understand why pub owners didnt ask for a govt grant due to loss of business and closures when it became obvious that trade had plumeted since the implementation of the smoking ban.
As the smoking ban was so totalatarian they could have restarted the fight by demanding a grant on the bais of having to redesign their pubs due to the urgent need of indoor smoking areas to enable them cope with the loss of business.
I wonder why they didnt do this.
It would make one wonder if they got a brown envelope to keep their mounths shut.
Even in New York when pubs whose takings were down, they were granted an exemption.
Nice one Zitori and Devil-Weather Granny :>
Peter Thurgood: Your rant says it ALL! :>
Thanks for that. It never ceases to amaze me how some non-smokers advocate having a separate room for smokers. Nay, all thats needed is a tiny room for the anti-smokers to retreat to. And leave us normal smokers and non-smokers to get on and enjoy ourselves - like we used to do!