Three in five smokers want smoking ban relaxed
Thursday, July 1, 2010 Three years after the introduction of the smoking ban in England a poll of over 1,000 smokers has revealed that three in five smokers want the smoking ban relaxed to allow separate smoking rooms.
The survey, commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association, also shows little support among smokers for extending the smoking ban to other areas - 62% would go less often to the pub if smoking was banned in all of the pubs’ outdoor areas.
Chris Ogden, chief executive of the TMA, said:
“We are recovering from recession and it is time to lift the legislative weight off struggling local businesses and their communities. The smoking ban has, contrary to claims from health organisations, severely threatened the £6 billion pub and bingo industry by negatively affecting thousands of people working in the hospitality sector who have lost sales, jobs and their livelihoods. Here is the evidence of how the smoking ban has impacted on Britain's pubs and clubs:
In the last year, almost 2,000 more English pubs have closed making a total loss of 4,148 since the ban in 2007 and over 10,000 jobs have been lost per year.
The rate of closures has almost trebled since the ban (1.1% 2004-7 versus 2.8% 2007-10).
7.6% of pubs in England and 20% of bingo halls have closed in total since the ban.
Almost 40 pubs are closing every week.
“The TMA supports an amendment to the legislation that would give landlords the choice to allow separate smoking rooms in pubs and clubs and we would encourage the Government to improve the legislation by introducing this proportionate amendment. Adult smokers should have available to them places where they may smoke without inconveniencing others and any review should be balanced, proportionate and take into account the likelihood of continued negative impact on business.”
Reader Comments (84)
@Dave Atherton - What I had in mind, Dave, was a video, a kind of idiot's guide to the 'science', explaining, to camera, in very simple layman's terms, why it's not compelling.
Joyce;
Hairy Chestnuts over at f2c is the man for the video.
Nice idea, Joyce. I would have thought that such a video would be easy and cheap to produce and could easily be promulgated via the web. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Martin V.
Regarding MPs 'secretaries' and 'researchers' the evidence of the expenses scandal clearly indicated that most of these people could not even run a simple spread sheet, although I agree totally with your sentiments.
I would have thought however that the Gov would have the wit to realise that the statistic which are presented to them as evidence are, at best, iffy and possibly totally misleading. And that 'panels of experts' are likely to push their own agendas - especially since there is no penalty for getting it wrong. I would have thought that there would be in the Office if Nat Stats a department composed of statisticians whose job it is to review in detail any such evidence. And, that all such evidence should be published in full detail on the web. That department would have to be very careful to get it right since penalties for getting it wrong would exist for them.
Junican -
Re:
"Office of Nat Stats..........................."
What we REALLY need is a Ministry of Truth.
But I think Orwell beat us to it.
In the meantime, I'm looking into the feasability of setting up an educational charity entitled the 'Society for the Complete Abolition of Mendacity'.
Or S.C.A.M. for short.
Whadya think ?
Joyce (et al) -
Speaking of Youtube, have you caught THIS one on the Anti-Smoking Movement ?
It looks VERY new - with only one comment so far, and (at time of writing) only 216 views.
It would also seem to go a long way to putting on film the sort of thing you suggest.
Worth a look, I think (and then I can get back to my Jethro Tull vids - and my long-lost youth):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLQ4IxdGUjw
PS:
I (respectfully) suggest EVERYONE see it.
It's really rather good - and made by our friends in Holland.
The subtitles are crap - but who cares ?
If only Channel 4 ....................................................
There is a fundamental flaw which the anti smoking engineeres have used to their advantage, and the more liberal folk have missed completely. Except for a few exceptions, there was essentially only one 'public place' where smoking was allowed prior to 1997, the licensed premise, ie pub, club anhd maybe a few others. The question which must be emphasised is should the smoking ban be relaxed in licensed premises, and there should be a qualification for answering this question, it must be answered by a user (or former user) of licensed premises.
PS This 'sealed' smoking room idea is succumbing to the lies this ban was based on. If there was a 'special room' in my local pub, I still would not go back.
This particular post is clearly a popular one and rightly so, although I am not sure that posters understand why it is that this subject is important.
The Tobacco Manufacturers Association (TMA) have produced the results of a survey which show that '62% of smokers would go less often to pubs which banned smoking in outdoor areas'.
Right....but....erm...how can pubs ban smoking in outdoor areas? How can a 'thing' (a pub) do anything? The reality must be that some individual must stop people who want to smoke in outdoor areas from doing so. There is no law in this country (as yet) which permits any individual to forbid smoking outdoors, regardless of whether or not the organisation own the premises or the land. It follows therefore that hospitals, for example, have no right whatsoever to ban smoking outdoors, even if the 'area' is on their land. The atmosphere is not theirs. But, of course, it would be extremely difficult for any individual to contest the rights of hospitals and railways stations, etc. It is almost certainly true that local magistrates will side with the the authorities, regardless of the facts.
It surprises me that the Tobacco Manufacturers Assn have allowed themselves to be drawn into any sort of survey about the outdoors, unless such a survey is designed to emphasis the fact that the outdoors does not belong to anyone or any organisation. If 62% believe that the outdoors is not under the control of the powers-that-be, then 38% of the people believe that the outdoors IS under the control of the powers-that-be (purely from the point of view of smoking, of course).
All us posters are trying our best to defend our right to enjoy tobacco. It does not surprise me, of course, that 60% of smokers want the ban to be relaxed. What is surprising is that 40% of smokers do NOT want the ban to be relaxed. I know that others above have asked the same question. My own opinion is that the other 40% have not really thought about the problem realistically. They have thought only about their own immediate situation. But that just shows how unreliable these surveys are - and that goes for the TMA survey as much as any other.
By the way, how can one see the DETAILS of the MFA survey? The whole thing beggars belief.
Martin - just watched the vid on Youtube. It IS very new (May of this year). I thought it a bit muddled and confusing. I think that he tried to cram in too much and it's a shame that the translation is so poor and the subtitles difficult to read. There is a part two - without subtitles. It's very easy to be critical, though, and hats off to the guy for producing it.
At least it's there to counter the anti-smoking vids shown down the side (there's even one on SHS and pets!) I haven't watched any ot them - I'd have to steel myself...
Joyce -
Agreed, but it's a start - and a rather encouraging sign of some sort of fight-back.
It would be great if someone like Martin Durkin - of Channel 4's 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - were to pick up THIS ball, and RUN with it.
But I'm not sure he could stand another tsunami of abuse from the science-is-settled mob.
And would anyone on C4 have the guts to commission it ?
Christ, I wish I worked in television.
I'd make it a four-parter...............................................
PS:
Sod it !
I'm writing to him, anyway......................................
'Society for the Complete Abolition of Mendacity' - SCAM, very good Martin.
And that sums up this whole govt statistic shambles of a scam, sham or whatever quango bullshit survey they brainwash us with on nearly a weekly basis to keep the downtrodden taxpayer bamboozled and hoodwinked into submission of believing their lies about every smoking issue and making any chalenge or debate from other bodies feel its not worth the effort.
Where have all the investigative journalists gone? have they been bought off too or are they also scared that they might loose their job.
Maybe I should include editors in this equation?
Ann -
You (wisely) ask:
"Where have all the investigative journalists gone?"
I dunno, Ann.
All I DO know is that when I was growing up in the Sixties, those who inspired ME to become a journalist (an ambition I later abandoned) were people like Rene Cutforth, Malcom Muggeridge, Brian Inglis, Cliff Michelmore, Robin Day, Fyfe Robertson, and Alan Whicker.
Each an interesting personality in his own right.
Each distinctly different, but all - in one sense - cut from the same rugged cloth.
And WHAT a cloth !
Apologies to the Modern Age - but Snow, Paxman, Adie and all the other High School Media Babes don't QUITE do it for me.
Rather like modern politicians.
If there's ONE thing I truly HATE about this era, it's the suffocating BLANDNESS of everything - notwithstanding all the synthetic noise and colour and orchestrated 'fun' that assaults our senses daily.
Oh for a little tobacco smoke !
And a little harmless (but life-enhancing) Wickedness..............................
(Rant over)
Martin V
I implore you to run with this idea about a programme exploding the myths about ‘passive smoking’ as hard as you can. Do contact Martin Durkin at all costs…what have you to lose?
Last year I contacted someone from channel 5 about such a programme, and was told that some sort of programme may be made in the future…nothing has happened.
Channel 4 may be the best, but you have to contact the right person, who will commission a programme for the channel, and you have to be determined, one request will not do.
I had suggested a courtroom style format, where witnesses could be cross examined forensically about so called evidence they have about ‘SHS’. A normal studio debate wouldn’t work; it would quickly descend into charge and counter charge, with point scoring from both sides.
A big advantage of the courtroom style format is that there is no hiding place, and all questions would have to be answered without interruption. There would be a jury and a judge who could sum up and decide whether or not it was ethical to bring in a smoking ban at all. Can you imagine how easy it would be to completely destroy the ‘SHS’ myth…and where would be the autopsy evidence confirming death by ‘SHS’?
Your witnesses’ only need to include clinical and scientific experts…there is no need for propagandists from the anti-smoking brigade since they have no medical or scientific expertise – do they?
This kind of programme would reach millions and would have a massively damaging impact on the antis…but remember our case needs meticulous preparation – no shortcuts.
So, how about it…and you can get whatever research is needed from Dave Atherton.
Have just watched the video. The English translation was rather poor, but comprehensible. Oddly, there were subtitles on both Parts 1 and 2 when I watched it - very odd.
How on earth the WHO managed to suppress its own study is incomprehensible. It just stinks worse than tobacco smoke.
Junican -
Re:
"How on earth the WHO managed to suppress its own study is incomprehensible..."
No more incomprehensible than an organisation which bans, un-bans, and then re-bans a relatively cheap and harmless way of controlling the Malaria-bearing Anopheles Mosquito (DDT) - as a result of which MILLIONS more will die NEEDLESSLY.
And this from a body with the word 'Health' in its very title.
That alone undermines their moral legitimacy (never mind their claim to some sort of moral superiority) in my eyes.
They - and similar organisations- are a bloody disgrace to Humanity IMHO.
But, my, how they like to posture...........................................
(Sorry - but these people make me SO angry)
Chris
Your idea is stupid and has no merit, go back to the drawing board.
Martin and Dave Atherton will have no truck with this.
Penn and Teller made a programme in the BS series in which they suggested SHS is basically harmless. They seem to have retracted some of what they said (Dec 2006 in the first minute or so, after that it goes into other things)--> YouTube Vid
What study is he refering to?
----
I agree Martin, all the modern day journalists just use smart words and raised voices to make a point amounting to nothing more than suffocating blandness,
I always get the impression that their bosses, after telling them who they will be grilling on the radio/tele tonight, gives them a pointer as to how far their synthetic act is to go.
On the lines of 'dont bring up this issue with the Ashman' our funding might be withdrawn or 'there's no political clout going down that road'.
Then we all get excited on the odd occasion when they take a swipe at someone just to keep us tuned in, followed quickly by said opponent getting the last word in and bland smiles all round.
A few posts back, before we got into taking over Channel 4, someone (I can't remember who) mentioned the way polls and suchlike were rigged to suit whatever agenda the pollsters wanted to promote.
I completely agree with all those who say this, and only a few minutes ago, I spotted a prime example of such rubbish surveys on a BBC News site, where children were being asked to say what they thought about adults drinking habits. The bit that caught my eye was this "Girls aged over 11 were asked why adults drank until they lost control and vomited"
I just couldn't believe that we were supposed to take something like this seriously.
It's like doing a survey on smoking and asking 10 year olds, "would you like to see your mummy and daddy lie squirming on the floor, and die a horrible death next week because they inhaled the smoke from a monster who was smoking outside a pub as they walked past?"
Have a look at the article here
would you be kind enough Simon, to take the old link off my post above (which again doesn't seem to be working) and insert this one instead?
article here
Guys the problem that you have with a debate on SHS is that ASH and the medical profession would refuse to take part. They believe "the science is settled." ASH refuse to debate with me and Chris Snowdon under any circumstances and was bumped off Radio5 when they heard I was going to be on it.
I do not want to sound like swivel eyed conspiracy theorist but the medical establishment whether they are ill informed or "lying" for the "greater good" will try and bury any debate.
Any You Tube video, research etc please feel free always to ask.
Dave
Have you read my post above? Jonathan thinks its stupid...what do you think?
Chris, it is a good idea just need someone in the television companies to agree. I can take on medical person and slaughter them. I also could suggest expert witnesses too.
Chris -
I don't think your idea is at all stupid - and has MUCH merit.
But it would have to be something more than one of those occasional Channel 4 'debates' - with Jon Snow as a rather improbable 'chairman.'
And the debate WOULD have to be under the supervision of a wholly impartial figure who was capable of ruling out any of those sligh appeals to the emotions that the Antis are fond of slipping in ("My Grannie's ears fell off" etc etc) when they start losing their grip of the science.
And it WOULD have to be about the Science, and the Science alone.
It would be even better if it were staged AFTER a Martin Durkin-style film that positively ripped into the Antis' bullying fraudulence.
It wouldn't change Society's current attitudes towards the Divine Weed overnight, but it would probably help to sow a few seeds of doubt.
At any rate, it would probably make many of us feel a LOT better.
There is, I fear, no Magic Sword with which to slay at one blow this fearful monster that's been over thirty years a-growing.
But a Thousand Cuts might just achieve it.
Especially now that cuts have become politically fashionable again....................
(Apparently)
PS:
And what about getting a friendly producer to do a gardening programme on grow-you-own tobacco ?
I reckon the Beeb would LEAP at the idea.
Wouldn't it ?
I can see Rachel de Thame and that bloke-with-a-bit-of-a-lisp now.........................
PPS:
For 'sligh', please read 'sly' in previous post but one.
Must be the cheap Belgian lager.........................................
Sorry Dave & Martin it’s taken so long to frame a reply. One of you must contact Martin Durkin…I have tried but without success…the film he did on global warming was I believe done through WAG tv. I am sure that if he didn’t want to be involved then he might know someone who did.
I suggested the courtroom style format because it wouldn’t allow some left wing influence from the likes of Snow or Dimbleby to creep into proceedings. In this format that I suggest you would have counsel from both sides asking questions without point scoring being allowed, just straightforward answers to questions – no grandstanding and more importantly - no wriggle room!
Even if only a discussion were to take place, then it still means a foot in the door. You would be able to work out which questions and which witnesses to call with the programme maker. A concise and professional presentation would have to be constructed for maximum effect; no stone must be left unturned.
Is it possible?
I don’t think so…I know so!
When I started the ball rolling on this debate by suggesting to Pat Nurse that she should probably make her own radio interview, and sell it to one of the small, local radio stations, I suggested it as a perfectly feasible idea.
The cost of making such a programme is negligible. It can be done almost anywhere with very inexpensive equipment, and it doesn't even involve trying to get "names" into a studio, as much of it can be done over the phone.
Also, small local radio stations are crying out for half hour programmes like this, something controversial, which costs them next to nothing, and which they can probably do a follow up phone-in, if it proves popular.
But, as I should have guessed, the inevitable happened, and instead of learning to walk first, we have those that want to run with the big boys, and break into mainstream television. It just aint gonna happen!
Mainstream television are not going to accept some little home made video, by a bunch of amateurs, with someone rattling off a sheet after sheet of facts and figures, and someone else shouting about how much they miss the good ol' days. Who the hell would be interested in that beside a few dedicated smoker-activists, like us on here?
I used to work in film and television, I was a partner in a film production company, I wrote scripts and co-produced a number of projects, so please believe me, it is just not that easy! To get a major tv channel interested in the first place, one needs to send them a synopsis of the project and an explanation of the type of audience the programme would be aimed at. They also need to know your credentials as a producer, what type of work have you produced before, who would be directing it and starring in it, and last but not least, the budget of your programme.
My advice, take it or leave it, is to try to do what I said in the first place, and make a small radio programme. If and when a programme like that was aired, it would give you/us, a stepping stone to produce something more substantial, i.e. TV.
I think this type of programme is a great idea.
It could start as a sort of documentary showing shuttered up pubs that have closed since the ban and then pub landlords telling of their lack of business showing their empty pubs and the staff they had to let go and then show the dole queues, followed by a shot of pigs or some farm animal in their protected sheds and then show smokers outside a pub in the wind and rain huddled and shivering under an awning with no sides trying to get a drag on a cigarette.
Then it could show people with full trolleys of drink loading their cars in supermarket carparks and then it could show the REAL statistics on the increase in domestic violence and how people are smoking more in the home since the smoking ban.
And then the court case could start showing up the false statistics and the scaremongering of the Antis.
Its the way to go and the title could be 'The Minority with no Voice'.
"Mainstream television are not going to accept some little home made video, by a bunch of amateurs......................"
Absolutely not !
That'd be the LAST thing we need.
After all, so far as the Science goes, it's the Antis who are the 'amateurs' - albeit rather convincing ones (with loads of dosh to back them up).
Their propaganda methods ARE, however, first class: we must give them that.
Just one question to you, Peter - given your acquaintance with the TV world:
Given that the programme was likely to prove (as I'd hope) highly 'controversial' (and genuinely so, for once), would that make commissioning editors and potential producers MORE or LESS inclined to take it on ?
Challenging the Establishment is one thing.
Challenging the Spirit of the Age quite another.....................................
Dave A -
Re:
"ASH refuse to debate with me and Chris Snowdon ........................."
Well that places you (in my eyes, at any rate) in rather exalted company.
It was only a couple of years ago, you may recall, that Lord Monckton was refused the opportunity to debate the science of AGW with Al Gore before a House committee - once, that is, the Democrats' goon squad realised WHOM Big Al would be crossing swords with.
Maybe bullies ARE gutless, after all - just as we were taught as children.
Maddening as it must have been for you and Chris, you have every right to feel flattered, frankly...............................................
"Given that the programme was likely to prove (as I'd hope) highly 'controversial' (and genuinely so, for once), would that make commissioning editors and potential producers MORE or LESS inclined to take it on ?"
I am sorry Martin there just isn't an answer to your question. It is akin to how long is a piece of string?
Try thinking yourself into the position of a (anti-smoking) commissioning editor, and you are offered this proposal; in all probability you would turn it down because of your persoanl views on the subject. Now think if you were a pro-smoking commissioning editor, you would probably do just the opposite.
Plus of course, it all depends on one's brief at that particular time. Are you looking for political slots, or maybe sporting stories would be the flavour of the month, or maybe a nice celebrity scandal, it goes on and on.
The way most programmes are taken on is by knowing the right person at the right time. You only have to look at some of the rubbish we see on TV to understand that.
Thanks, Peter -
Rather thought that might be the case.
Even in an Age of Change, some things NEVER do....................................