Thursday
Jul232009
Save our pubs and clubs open thread
Thursday, July 23, 2009 
Further to yesterday's news that 52 pubs are closing EVERY WEEK, I am creating an open thread today so that people can comment on our campaign to amend the smoking ban. This also coincides with the distribution, this morning, of e-bulletins to supporters of Forest and Save Our Pubs & Clubs. Please keep your comments short and to the point.
To receive occasional e-bulletins from Forest, sign up HERE.
If you have not yet registered your support for the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, click HERE. To date over 1250 people have signed up, including 250 publicans.
Update on Friday, July 24, 2009 by
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
As a result of Thursday's e-bulletin a further 249 267 286 301 people have joined the campaign.
Reader Comments (138)
I am not surprised that pubs are closing down after the smoking ban. Personally, I have not been in a pub since it came into force. Previously, I used to go out for a meal on a regular basis, but having to go outside for my cigs completely ruined it for me. I live in a rural village and our local pub has lost nearly all it's locals since the ban. OK in the summer, it survives due to holiday trade.
In my view, the kind of legislative process which has resulted in the introduction of the ban on smoking (and a great deal of other unpopular legislation in recent years) raises the fundamental question as to whether such acts are a proper use of government's power.
It is not enough for government to exercise its right to act as the guardians of authority. We also have a right. To demand that they act as the champions of our liberty.
The necessary degree of respect for any law can only be achieved by ensuring that the law in question has the total or, at the very least near total, support of those whom it affects. A government that acts in any other way is simply a tyranny. This bullying of the people must stop and be replaced by the more inclusive balanced approach that we see in several other countries.
Just back from Spain where Bars etc have a sign in the window stating whether smoking is allowed. Why are we not given a choice?
I have signed up to support your campaign strongly although I am a retired landlord with over 35 years in the trade. As soon as the ban was made I knew that would close lots of pubs & clubs which is part of our history and culture.
I do not smoke but am a believer in all forms of freedom for the individual so I support your campaign whole heartedly.
Bit like locking the door after the horse has bolted isn't it?
This should have been taken up 2 years ago.
I think by now we all know that we have a dysfunctional Govt. who couldnt really care less about the people of Britian, all they care about is thenselves. Even when the ban was brought in, Tony Blair the then Prime Minister didnt really want it brought in, it was just that at that moment in time he was more concerned about another bill he wanted brought in that same week before he left office. The problem is the majority of the British people are very moral and law abiding and even though it is a completely unfair law and is causing an awful lot of unnecessary hardship we abide by the law. In France they have brought this law in numerous times, but the French just ignore it and carry on regardless. If we all just ignored it, they would fine us, if we didnt pay the fines, they would jail us, and lets face it, the way this Govt. have run the jails and the country there isnt enough room!! Its a great idea but we wont do it cos we are British.
I support the campaign. One thing you could do is to supply, at cost, business card sized cards with the logo on one side and something to the effect of,
"Had enough of standing outside in the cold? Go to www...etc. and register your support."
I say this because every day after work I walk past packed tables outside pubs. It is easy to spot the smokers as they have their tobacco or cigarettes on the table in front of them, and they wouldn't view these cards as junk mail. It would be a fantastically efficient way of getting the campaign known, but there are only a few weeks of sunny weather left before the opportunity is lost. Next summer will be too late.
What amazes me is that this ban has been effectivley challenged in several european countries and has accordingly been amended,in others it was never a total ban in clubs and bars,so where is European Unity on this and equal rights for all European citizens.???
Here In Canary Islands you were given freedom of choice generally,with a few exceptions and those that chose Non Smoking at the beginning have largely changed back where possible and allowing freedom of choice now,an option we should all have.
Were not focing non smokersto sit in smoking areas,just let us choose what we do because the next thing you know we will be told what we can and cannot wear or when we can make love!!!!
PEOPLE HAVE NOT REALISED WE HAVE OPENED THE DOOR TO BEING DICTATED TO IN OUR OWN HOMES AND PROPERTIES. "SO WHATS NEXT" STOP IT NOW.!!!
Danny, from 2004-2006 Forest ran a campaign called Fight The Ban: Fight For Choice. We spent in the region of £500,000 on the campaign (lobbying parliament and the media) and gave it our very best shot.
When the then Health Secretary John Reid proposed a "compromise" (exemptions for private clubs and pubs that don't serve food) it appeared that the campaign had succeeded (to some extent). Instead, in February 2006, Labour MPs reneged on an election manifesto commitment and voted overwhelmingly in favour of a blanket ban.
Since then we have continued to oppose the ban, privately and publicly, but neither the media nor members of parliament have shown any great interest in the issue.
With a government review promised in 2010 we believe that now is the right time to launch a campaign to amend the ban. We are entirely realistic about our chances but we hope people will support our aims and objectives.
This campaign to amend the smoking ban is so important. It's NOT too late ... unfair and unpopular laws DO get overturned.
It just requires us all to work together to spread the word about the campaign (great suggestion about the calling cards btw, Jon!) and let our politicians know, in the run up to a certain General Election in under a year, that:
* the matter isn't settled and it's not going to go away
* millions of people (literally), including both smokers AND non-smokers, are not happy with the total ban, and
* that all we're asking for is CHOICE - for smokers and non-smokers alike.
EXTRACTOR FANS AND AIR CONDITIONERS WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEMS -- GO FORRIT !
Aase
I sent this letter as an email to Mark Hastings of the British Beer and Pub Association yesterday. I didn't ask for a reply and haven't received one but I hope it made my feelings sufficiently clear. The pub industry only has itself to blame for this mess.
Mark Hastings Esq
Director of Communications
British Beer and Pub Association
Dear Mr Hastings
I heard you talking about red tape, tax breaks and the recession this morning following the news that 52 pubs, especially local independents, are closing every week, yet never once did I hear you mention the blindingly obvious real reason: the smoking ban.
When Wetherspoons opened their first non-smoking pubs, and while the ban was a glint in Caroline Flint's eye, they claimed that the pubs were doing very well. Why on earth, then, were they and you not vociferous in lobbying to introduce smoking and non-smoking pubs and/or areas?
As soon as the ban came in I saw that customer numbers in very popular pubs in London, where I live, collapsed. These have never recovered. I note that in most countries the ban is hardly upheld at all, and that in Australia, where it is upheld and where I lived for some years, the weather allows for more outdoor drinking; but even there, inner-city pubs have had to take radical measures such as removing the top floor and turning it into an outdoor terrace; or buying and demolishing a building next door for the same reason. The ones that can't do that are experiencing exactly the same consequences as pubs and bars here.
Ms Flint told us that the health of pub and bar workers was the reason for the ban; well according to you, thousands of people are losing their jobs because these places are closing. I wonder which has more social ramifications? Worse still, the pub which used to be the focal point of many communities has now disappeared leaving people lonely, depressed and very possibly getting drunk at home alone.
Finally, we are constantly being told that supermarkets are undercutting pub prices and that this is why young people are on the streets at night, drunk. Wrong again. Young people tend to smoke, cannot smoke in pubs, buy beer and spirits in supermarkets and drink them outdoors. Supermarkets have merely jumped on this as an opportunity.
You must know that Forest and Anthony Worrall Thompson have started a lobbying group to bring back smoking areas. They must succeed if there is to be any hope for the future, and you must put you weight behind them if only by giving out the same message. Individual chains with large estates and significant lobbying power have failed signally, for which I cannot forgive them. Their spinelessness has cost all of us one of the most fundamental institutions of British life and culture, which is blind to any kind of discrimination: the pub. Please use your influence to do something about this before it is too late.
Yours sincerely
Barry Goodman"
I disagree with Aase Goldsmith who says that extractor fans and air conditioning would solve the problem.
I do not want to be locked away in some hermetically sealed room, just so I can smoke, no more than I want to be shoved outside so I can smoke.
I want to be free to smoke where I want, in exactly the same way our cousins in other countries, such as Spain, can do.
The anti-smoking lobby have spent a great deal of their time, and a lot of our money, in "de-normalising" smokers. I do not see smokers as "not normal" in any way. Smokers have been around for hundreds of years, and accepted in society for all that time, right up until two years ago, when they were suddenly branded as unclean, smelly, and worse still, killers of children.
The only way smokers are ever going to be accepted back into society again, is by turning the de-normalisation programme on its head, and showing everyone that smokers are normal people who just happen to like smoking tobacco.
We will not turn that programme around by allowing smokers to be locked in sealed rooms, like rats in an experimental cage.
I was at the launch of the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, where it was said that the amendments we want were along the same lines as those operated in Spain, where premises below 100 square meters are allowed to choose for themselves, whether to allow or not to allow smoking. Larger premises are required by law to provide a smoking area, and a non smoking area.
No sealed rooms, just freedom of choice!
The blanket smoking ban was brought in with an overwhelming vote by MPs.
Which raises the question. Do these MPs know what they're doing?
Or are they simply responding to vociferous anti-smoking zealots and so-called expert advice from interested parties with commercial motives?
The rationale behind the smoking ban was to protect the health of non-smokers, despite the fact that there is still no proof of even one single death from so-called passive smoking, and even disregards evidence some health benefits from smoking. It precludes choice.
The end result amounts to little more than legalised lynch-law, where a minority group can organise themselves and impose their will on the population at large.
We want a government that serves us, not the other way around.
O/T but today's Radio 4's PM (airing 5pm-6pm) is featuring a report on smoking.
I agree Peter. The whole argument concerning air extrcators etc, is missing the point completely. There is nothing wrong with having them, but the smoking ban is not about that, it's about fraud. SHS is not a danger and exposing the incredible fairy stories that have led to bans, to increase the coffers of the drug companies, should always be the main thrust of argument.
Accepting that greater air conditioning must be implemented, before smoking is allowed, is accepting that it is a danger, and in the end that danger will be used to end ALL objections, as is the case here at present.
As far as the MP's go, you'd be hard pushed to find even a few that know ANYTHING about SHS, apart from the Anti-Smoking Crusade's worlwide propaganda they have been fed,now institutionalised, which led to their dumb votes FOR the ban.
A Law passed by the ignorant, on behalf of the fanatics, who themselves have been used by the Pharmaceuticals.
"A Law passed by the ignorant, on behalf of the fanatics, who themselves have been used by the Pharmaceuticals" says Zitori
Spot on Zitori. Only today it was revealed that GlaxoSmithKline's profits reached £2.1 Billion in the past 3 months alone.
At this moment in time they are blaming Swine Flu vaccines as being the culprit that has pushed their profits up so high, and I am sure they have.
But as we all know, the pharmaceutical companies such as these are coining it in because of the gullible government and equally gullible public who have been taken in over the smoking ban.
A public enquiry needs to be held on the vast profits these companies are making, based mainly on lies and misinformation.
why doesn`t anyone mention the fact that since the ban more people are drinking at home, cheap beer from the supermarkets,this is also putting drink into the hands of younger drinkers (if parents are at work who`s supervising the booze)in a couple of years the goverment will be yelling about the amount of nhs money being spent on under 25`s with alcholol problems with only themselves (govt) to blame
Sick of being bossed about and told what I think by robotic career-politicians. Labour MP's petty prejudices brought us this ban, not democracy.
I cannot respect any politician who treats their electorate in such a shabby high-handed and mean-spirited way.
Mean spirited indeed!
Those who don't like and fear smoking, and those who like it and do not fear it, can be accomodated. The issue really is as simple as that!
Although the 'passive smoking kills' argument is a nonsense, I do accept that some people find smoke unpleasant, and for that reason I think, unlike Zitori, that the installation of really efficient aircon doesn't necessarily imply that smoking is dangerous.
I am frustrated by The British Beer and Pub Association's inability to attatch a greater blame to the smoking ban for their pub closures. As a penniless smoking drinker I can asssure everyone that my monthly pub spend of £300 is now at £0 as a direct result of the ban. My wife and I are gagging to spend money in pubs but England is now devoid of such institutions. Aaaaagh !!
I agree with Jenty, good extractor fans/aircon systems would seem like a good way of making life more pleasant for any staff and clientele (eg non-smoking friends or partners) who aren't keen on coming home reeking of smoke, or find it irritates their eyes or throats. Personally, I wouldn't care at all if a proportion of bars and restaurants had the feel of being smoke-free, so long as I could smoke in them!
I really liked your letter to the BBPA, Barry! Good for you.
With regard to air extraction/renewal, if we look back to when smoking was banned on aircraft, this was to do with the airlines saving money on air filtration. The fine 'mesh' required to effectively filter and clean the air with the aircraft was replaced with a coarser version. Since then you are more likely to catch a cold, or worse, whilst flying as the cheaper filtration does not filter out the germs and nasty bugs, which the previous filtration system did!
On that basis, pubs, clubs and other public places would be a darn sight healthier, if proper, effective filtration was installed. The reasoning for this could be multifold and include the fact that for comfort it would extract smoke and nasty smells of bo and upteen different fragrances mixed together, but it would also, and more importantly, protect everyone from the spread of diseases such as the common cold, seasonal flu and the current 'pandemic' of swine flu! This argument and solution would save the NHS millions!
Common sense, that is all that is required.
Jenty, of course installing air conditioning doesn't imply that SHS,is dangerous,I didn't say that. Unfortunately this law was not based on the premise that installing it would solve the problem. The law was based on the fact that even with it in place SHS is still dangerous! Deadly in fact.
So therefore my point was that fighting the law with just the idea that air conditioning will satisfy the Antis, but not exposing the fraud it is based on, will not be enough.
Firther to this, I have long held the belief that reducing the percentage of 'fresh' air on planes, with a much higher percentage of recycled air, since the bans, would highten the chance of a serious pandemic travelling the world in just a matter of hours.This is a point I've made many times to newspapers, but have had no success.Also with Forest, who, as far as I'm aware, have never mentioned it in public. It should be an important point.
For this campaign to have any chance of success it must have a clear and reasonable aim of what amendment we would like to see. We must show that our idea of choice includes the option for anyone to have access to premises where they can eat/drink in a smoke free atmosphere.
The original proposals promised us that option - that smoking would be allowed in some premises but not in others, and I think that is what we should be aiming for.
I, personally think that any establishment should be either smoking or non-smoking and, ideally, the proprieter should decide. If necessary, the local authority could have some control on the amount of either to maintain a balance (not necessarily 50/50) through the licensing system. For instance, the local authority would decide the maximum number of pubs in which smoking will be allowed (after suitable consultation). Licencees will have to apply for a 'smoking' licence and the only grounds for refusal will be that the 'quota' has already been met.
Essentially, I agree with Michael Smith, in that, in the first place, we need a clear, initial objective.
There are many possible, but I agree with Michael that, "The original proposal promised us that option......what we should be aiming for".
To this end, I have just emailed the following to my MP (Ruth Kelly - who is going to step down - but it is still worth emailing):
"No doubt you are aware of the campaign to 'Save our Pubs and Clubs', currently being sponsored by Forest, by amending the Smoking Ban.
As a constituent, all I ask is that you do your best to persuade your colleagues to amend the ban so as to conform with the Manifesto published prior to the last General Election.
As a lifetime supporter of the Labour party but also as a smoker, it was on the basis of this Manifesto that I voted Labour. If the Manifesto had said that the Party intended to totally ban smoking in public places, I would not have voted Labour.
I feel that I have been betrayed. Please do your best."
I feel that the failure of the Labour Party to honour its manifesto pledge is its achilies heel. I feel that if enough people pestered their MPs (if they are Labour) with a similar message, then these MPs might get it.
Otherwise.........
I will certainly be telling my friends at the pub what I have done and I will be suggesting that they do likewise.
It’s quite clear that the smoking ban was the tipping point for many pubs and clubs. Cheap supermarket booze has always been available and it hasn’t suddenly become cheaper. As for tax and duty, who remembers ‘booze cruises’? Tax and duty have always been high. So adding the recession on top of the smoking ban together with greedy rents and rates for pubs (and poor margins) and it’s no surprise that 52 per week are closing down.
But there is a bigger picture here that is seldom debated and that is the loss of free choice and freedom we have all experienced since the Labour Party got in power perhaps due to their susceptibility to single-issue pressure groups. Guns, fox hunting, and smoking are just three incidences of the Labour Party’s lack of guts when it comes to defending our freedom. I have no brief to defend any of these, particularly fox hunting, which is obnoxious. But I would defend people’s rights to pursue anything they want as long as it isn’t patently illegal.
Notably the Labour Party started small when it came to taking away freedoms – only picking on tiny minorities. (Sound familiar?) But they have got ever more ambitious and picked on bigger minorities. Smokers are a ‘bigger minority’. Who is next? Fat people? People who don’t recycle? People who protest? People who aren’t PC? Oh, sorry, they’ve already started on all of these.
The problem is that the alternative mainstream political parties are hardly any better. They all seem obsessed with interfering with every tiny – no miniscule - aspect of our lives. We absolutely must stop big government, but I’m at a loss as to how we do this when we are not offered any alternatives.
Do I support changing the smoking ban? Yes, definitely. Smoking is bad for you, but it’s the choice of smokers. And it’s the choice of landlords whether they allow smoking or not.
Myself and about 10 friends are no longer regulars at our local as we cannot relax and are having to continually get up and down to have a smoke so now we just visit each others houses were we are free to do as we please (for the time being!!!)
The smoking ban has led to smokers being seen as an acceptable group to victimise - I was physically assaulted in the street, harassed and abused merely for having dared to stand outside a shop in the pouring rain I might add, and have a cigarette. I wasn't bothering anyone, yet the person who abused me felt it was perfectly acceptable to target me, call me names, and yell abuse at me for being a "pig ignorant smoker".
At a family wedding recently all smokers - of which there were many including the bride - were forced to stannd outside in the wind and rain with NO shelter if we wanted to smoke during the reception, in doing so I got soaked to the skin but was told it "served me right for smoking". Why on earth did it "serve me right?" We played our part, we did not smoke inside or around non smokers, why then should we be further penalised by not being afforded some measure of shelter whilst doing so?
It is so good to see fresh blood on this site; it proves that the campaign to amend the smoking ban is starting to attract more people's attention, which in turn should be beneficial to the campaign.
But, although the campaign seems to be gathering momentum, there also seems to be many people who have not read what the actual proposals are about, and so we now have individuals on here, arguing with each other as to what form the amendments should take.
I think that the vast majority of people who come onto this site, do so because they disagree with the ban, and want changes in one way or another, which is admirable, and I think that we, as a whole, should back this campaign as it stands, and not try to alter the fundamental basis of it.
At the moment, the campaign has the backing of a number of MPs from all three major parties, as well as UKIP, and the chef, Antony Worral Thompson. They have all put their weight behind it.
My point is that if that group start pressing for the changes, as stated in the campaign's manifesto, and at the same time, we, as their supporters, start arguing amongst ourselves as to how and why and which amendments should be made, this would only help to scupper the case before it gets off the ground.
"What do the smokers want?", they would cry, "they ask for one thing, and their supporters ask for another".
I suggest backing the campaign whole heartedly, and I further suggest everyone reading what we are supposed to be backing: http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/index.php/our_case/
This smoking ban, has ruined our pubs and clubs industry, it has ruined our holidays because we can not smoke in any airport or know whether we will be given a room for smoking abroad. I used to go out with friends once a week for a coffee now i dont go because i refuse to sit out in the cold to have a cigarette. This ban is totally unfair. It has also caused a lot of unemployment in this country when we are in a recession. Its the governments fault that the people who have lost their jobs because of the smoking ban and in the middle of a recession. I hate this government and i can not wait for an election so that i will beable to cast my vote to get rid of them. This country i used to love has become a dictatorship and i loathe it like millions of others do. Come on tell your friends to support save our pubs and clubs and also next time you vote remember to vote for a government that has a more relaxed view on smoking.
Peter. I can understand why there is certain disagreement among posters and some people wonder if the end justifies the means. When people start off by saying things like' I know smoking is bad for you but...' it raises the hackles of many smokers who do not believe this to be the case. Ventilation systems should be encouraged but not as a means of protection from the harmful effects of cigarette smoke but to remove smells and purify air from all impurities.
I totally agree that I do not want an amendment to the ban whereby I have to sit in sealed room like some contagion. I would still not frequent the pubs again under these conditions. I also agree that those who do not like the smell of smoke should have the option of going out and having the choice of a smokefree environment.
It is not just an amendment to the ban is needed. The whole demonisation of smokers must stop and I for one could not support an amendment to the ban which reinforced that smokers are dirty, smelly, inconsiderate child killers.
And the Tories are afraid of being called the' Nasty Party' well you can't get much more nastier than the one in power now can you.
Although I have mentioned before I dont see why I should help publicans who did not help themselves,however we need to give this campaign all guns firing.
One of the things that irritate me Micheal, (and there are plenty I can assure you) is the fact that non, or anti-smokers are always complaining that they should be able to breath fresh air instead of other people's smoke. These same people do not seem believe the fact that "their" cars contribute much more to foul smells and pollution, than all the cigarettes in the world.
OK that is fair enough, they are ignorant and impervious to real facts, and we, unfortunately do not have the time or the money to educate them. But, having said that, if they really believe the air is so fresh and pure, which they should be allowed to breath in, why don't these fools be our guests and go outside the pubs and bars and restaurants, and breath it all in to their heart's content?
Why do they want to go into pubs, and worse still, take their young children into them, when they know damn well that the average pub stinks of beer, and B.O. and sometimes vomit, to name just a few of the smells one might encounter in the average pub? If the air outside is so pure and lovely, then why don't they go out there, and leave the smelly interiors to us smokers, who if allowed to smoke in pubs once again, would soon help drown out all those other ghastly smells I just spoke of?
I went into a pub a few nights ago, and the next day I had to wash my hair and have all my clothes dry-cleaned, as everything smelled of B.O. beer, and vomit. Not really, but if we have to listen to this type of thing about tobacco, then we might as well turn it back on them and see how they like it.
I agree Peter but there should be proper ventilation systems in bars to deal with all these smells. I accept that some people do not like the smell of smoke on their clothes and if proper ventilation systems removed all odours this would be one less thing to complain about. Most non smokers I know do not subscribe to the SHS crap but do find that their clothes do not smell as a result of the ban. They would happily support an amendment as the pure air argument only goes on in the minds of the Zealots.
These are the people we need to bring on board as the fASHists will never be swayed. They want us pilloried and spat upon so that we crawl away out of sight. Forget about SHS and admit that smoking does cause smells on clothes and any amendment would mean that those pubs or clubs who wished to be smoking would have to install the best of extraction systems for the 'comfort' and not 'safety' of their clientele.
I agree with Michael Smith that any amendment must ensure that people who don't like smoke perceive that they have a wide choice of non-smoking venues. I agree that, in a perfect world, the choice should be the business owners', and that pubs are not public spaces; but we are trying to get a law amended. Many people have been gloating over the past two years and, while I'd like to see the smirks wiped off their faces as much as the next person, for the campaign to succeed these people must not be made to feel as if they have lost a battle.
I don't recall Churchill saying that when we beat the Germans in WWII Jon.
I have had two years of curtailing to these Zealots. I have listened to their lies for two years, I have lost friends over the last two years because of them, I have lost much of my social life because of them.
Their lies about the smells or stinks are even beginning to be believed by people here, who should know better. I have smoked all my life, and most of my family have also smoked. I have a particularly sensitive sense of smell, and I can say with all honesty, that I have never smelt tobacco fumes on my clothes or hair...Ever!
Where were the hand wavers who can only smell tobacco smells, 5 years ago? We never heard of them did we? We have only heard of them since the Government and their lackeys, told them two years ago, that tobacco stinks.
I seem to be sensing an air of capitulation here lately, which if true, would be such a shame, as this new campaign has every chance of eventually succeeding, if we all stand strongly behind it.
I say, no more cow towing to their lies, no more admitting that we just might be "unclean", no more being second class citizens, no more saying aren't we lucky that we just might be allowed to smoke in a sealed room. We are not animals, so don't let them treat us as such.
Churchill would never have accepted second best, and neither should we.
'I seem to be sensing an air of capitulation here lately'.
Was this a pun Peter and if not what sort of ventilation system would remove that?
Peter, I agree with you and I am not capitulating. Actually I am becoming more optimistic. I sense more non-smokers are sympathetic and that anti-smokers are admitting their objection is purely on smell and irritation grounds and that the risk from ETS is negligible. I'm looking at the practicalities. Take a lesson from ASH. They didn't wade in shouting that smokers were the scum of the earth and shouldn't even be allowed to smoke at home. That's what they think. But by stealth, they've managed to get a pub ban. Just one small beach head is needed at the moment. ASH started by getting a ban on planes. We only need to undo the ban in a proportion of pubs. Public opinion will do the rest. Fewer people smoking on the pavement etc. This amendment's a good idea.
"Forget about SHS and admit that smoking does cause smells on clothes and any amendment would mean that those pubs or clubs who wished to be smoking would have to install the best of extraction systems for the 'comfort' and not 'safety' of their clientele."
I agree that the idea of a foot in the door is attractive. But conceding government's authority to legislate in such a way is not something I relish.
It should be clear that no law should ever be passed because some people object to a smell. Pubs that wish to offer smoking should not be 'required' to pander to the demands of people who don't use them.
However there are many sources of airborne contaminants and there is a good case for air monitoring in all indoor public environments whether smoking or not. Air cleaning should be mandatory for buildings where natural air conditioning doesn't achieve acceptable air quality. The presence or absence of smoke has nothing to do with it really.
sorry should have previewed: reverse order of paras 2 and 3 in post above!
I agree with you Belinda, with reference to legislation should never be granted just because some people object to a certain smell.
Where on earth would it end?
We are all different, thank God, and nearly everyone has some smell or other which they do not like. With legislation like this, every single shop, restaurant, factory, whatever, would have to provide suitable air conditioning in case they offended someone's sense of smell. It is just so ridiculous.
It is as bad as another poster's comments, who suggested local councils (I think) being given the power to issue "smoking licenses" to premises, based on how many were already in existence in that particular area. The poster suggested that the licenses should be issued on a 50-50 basis.
Can you imagine that scenario? You are a bar owner, struggling to attract clients and cannot get a smoking licence, because the 50 - 50 quota has already been fulfilled. That would be all right then would it? Sorry sir, you'll either have to stay open as a non smoking establishment and go bust in 4 weeks time, or close down now. Sound familiar?
I agree with Tracy who said the smoke ban encourages abuse against smokers. It is why I have always been against the implentation of such a ban. It legitimises discrimination and encourages hatred towards a minority group.
PIZOFF all you bloody hypocrites. I am here getting slowly pissed and smoking my cigars (cheap, imported from Tenerife) and as you will note, getting more and more anti-social.
I too agree with Tracy.
To me the smoking ban and the encouraged discrimination against those who choose to smoke are contributing to the increased violence within our society.
There's plenty of evidence to prove that point as well.
1. Passive tobacco smoke is just a SMELL. Your nose can recognise a smell in the ratio of one part in a million - temporarily.
TEMPORARILY is important - the sense of SMELL is there simply to forwarn of possible dangers.
2. SMELLS, in themselves, never hurt anyone.
Therefore, the whole edifice of HARMFUL PASSIVE SMOKING is false. So called 'passive smoking' is just a SMELL.
As far as 'Save our Pubs and Clubs' is concerned, the importance of these ideas is this.
One of our most cherished institutions, the Public House, where we meet and exchange views, is being sacrificed on the altar of vaguely perceived, passive smoking mumbo-jumbo.
I note that - at 27 - Chloe Smith, the new Tory (New Tory ?) MP for Norwich Norwich is now the 'youngest MP in Britain'.
Despite her depressingly Nu Labour Look, plus her highly original background in 'management consultancy', I'd really love to know HER views - on the Ban in general, and the 'Save Our Pubs' campaign in particular.
I shall drop her a line and find out. The response MAY give an indication as to how far her 'generation' of potential Conservative MPs has been successfully conditioned by all the well-funded mendacity.
In the interim, does anyone happen to know ?
Junican -
Re your comment that:
"the sense of SMELL is there simply to forewarn of possible dangers...................."
This, of course, is ESPECIALLY true of certain brands of Givenchy and Chanel !