Will Pubs Survive?

[Albert Tatlock]

My comments on the Isle of Man proposed Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2006 Act (the 'smoking' consultation documentation, the questionnaire and the subsequent assessment of responses on which this proposed legislation has been based):

 

The analysis is statistically unsound and biased. Moreover, the consultation and proposed Act fail to acknowledge, or address in significant depth, a wide variety of important issues.

 

Comments relating to: "Proposed Legislation on Smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places - Key Findings of Responses to a Public Consultation"

 

“Summary of results

91.9% of (6623) household residences are in favour of a ban on smoking in workplaces and enclosed public spaces and 88.1% of (430) registered businesses are similarly in favour. In addition, 92.3% of (3706) online responses were in favour of a ban on tobacco smoking. Less than 10% of 10769 responders are not in favour of a ban.”

 

i. According to the 1996 Isle of Man census, there were 29,377 households in the Isle of Man, which has no doubt increased. Using this figure, the 6623 households that responded represent only 22.5% of the number of the total number households on the Isle of Man and the 91.9% in favour of a ban in workplaces and enclosed public spaces means only 20.72% of households agree with this view. It is usual for households to consist of many people, whose opinions on a variety of subjects are likely to differ substantially. With only one form to respond, the view of a particular household is unlikely to reflect all of its occupants, and in the field of statistics, should only be allowed to reflect the view of the respondent who completed the form and not considered as representing the views of others living within that household. This means that only one person in each household can be considered to have actually expressed the view and not the household.

 

ii. A telephone call to the companies registry reveals that there are well over 30,000 companies registered on the Isle of Man, (other websites state 48,000 in 1998). Thus 430 company respondents represent only 9 to 14% of registered businesses.

 

iii. What checks were carried out to ensure that any one respondent did not fill in two or more questionnaires purporting to come from different households? With regard to the 3706 online respondents, what checks and guarantees were in place (e.g. e-mail registration, recording IP address etc.) to ensure that each respondent was given only one vote? Web surveys are not a reliable method of recording data unless adequate measures are in place to ensure that any person in favour of, or not in favour of, an issue cannot repeatedly select the “In Favour” or “Not in Favour” option. If no such measures were in place, this element of the response should be ignored as being statistically unsound. Similarly, what guarantees were in place to stop a person that had responded to the questionnaire delivered to their house from responding again via the associated website and being represented two or more times? Would the Isle of Man government accept that this same website could be used for election purposes? Would the Isle of Man government ban such events as the TT races and Manx Grand Prix based on a similar consultation, given the statistical risk of death and injury from participating in these events?

 

“Analysis was conducted by the Isle of Man Post Office”.

 

iv. I was not aware that the Isle of Man Post Office employed statisticians qualified to carry out such an analysis. What were the qualifications and experience of those that carried out the ‘analysis’ and what checks on responses were carried out (as in iii above)?

 

Comments relating to: The questionnaire

 

Question 1: Having considered the health risks associated with passive smoking, do you think that further action needs to be taken to reduce people’s exposure to second-hand smoke?

 

v. Overall, this question is phrased to make a “Yes” response sound positive, while making a “No” response sound negative. This has the effect of biasing the respondent's answer.

 

Question 2. Would you support a law that would make enclosed public places smoke free?

 

vi. As question 1 is phrased to make a “Yes” response sound positive, while making a “No” response sound negative, the answer to question 1 therefore biases the respondents answer to question 2.

 

Question 3. If a law to ban smoking in workplaces and enclosed public spaces is introduced, do you think there should be any exemptions to it?

 

vii. The dramatic changes in response to question 3 highlight the fundamental flaws, bias and limitations of questions 1 and 2. The number of valid comments indicates that people have not been given sufficient information and have themselves been forced to point out factors which should have been included in material given to them and reflected in the design of the questionnaire i.e. the information given to them for consideration, and the questions asked of them therefore did not reflect a balanced view. The current proposed Act is clearly based on the answers to questions 1 and 2 only.

 

“The detrimental effects of smoking have been a major public health concern since 1962 when the Royal College of Physicians, UK, published ‘Smoking and Health’. This groundbreaking report clearly evidenced a direct link between smoking and life threatening diseases such as lung cancer and coronary heart disease, and called for urgent government intervention, recommending actions such as a public education programme, increased taxation, restrictions on tobacco advertising, greater steps to restrict the sale of tobacco to children and restrictions on smoking in public places”.

 

viii. This statement implies that the same research evidence and risk levels on the effects of being an ‘active smoker’ apply to those of being a ‘passive smoker’, where the sets of research results are wholly different.

 

“Since then, progress has been made to reduce levels of smoking, and establish smoke free zones through a variety of measures and policies. However, there is still a long way to go. Smoking is a habit that is deep rooted within Isle of Man society. Recent figures show that about 20-25% of adults are smokers. The habit remains the biggest single cause of preventable illness and premature death on the Isle of Man, placing considerable strain on the local Health Service. Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS between £1.4bn and £1.7bn annually in the UK (equivalent to more than £1.7 million per year on the Island), whilst the NHS in Scotland spends an estimated £200 million per annum (at present day prices) on hospital treatment for diseases caused by tobacco use”.

 

ix. Little effort has been made to establish or enforce smoke free zones or ventilated areas in public houses on the Isle of Man.

 

x. The islands actual income from tobacco duty is approximately £20 million per annum. On the isle of Man governments own figures, each year this covers the associated Health Service expenses ten-fold, and in addition, would allow for the cost of building one new properly project-managed Nobles hospital every eight years.

 

“Non-smokers who are exposed to ETS in the workplace have their risk of lung cancer increased by 16-19%. Passive smoking also increases the possibility of a heart attack by 25-30%”.

 

xi. In this context, this is a misuse of statistics seeking to take advantage of peoples general inability to understand statistical data. For example, the chances of winning the UK lottery jackpot are 1 in 14 million, but if you were to say to someone that by purchasing an additional ticket they would increase their chances of winning the jackpot by 100%. – this actually means that instead of 1 in 14 million they have a 2 in 14 million chance of winning, clearly still very unlikely.

[Albert Tatlock]

And finally…

 

Other Issues (either not considered, or not considered in sufficient depth) in the islands smoking ‘debate’.

 

The proposed Isle of Man Act and Associated Consultation upon which it is based:

 

• Reflects our governments inability to properly address this issue. It is unrealistic to believe that this Act will stop smoking or reduce it significantly, when the real issue is that many children (30% have tried smoking by year 10 according to Lyz Moore, schools' co-ordinator for tobacco education in the Department of Health and Social Security) and many are often addicted to cigarettes long before they would smoke in public and visit public houses etc. This act does not address the problem and will do nothing other than encourage smokers to smoke at home in the presence of own their children, thus re-enforcing take-up of the habit.

• Is likely to lead to children to further view smoking as “anti-establishment” and encourage them further.

• Fails to address that a ban on smoking in ALL enclosed public places will be unpopular and create resentment, as it is unfair to criminalise a quarter of the community for indulging in a habit that is not, in itself, illegal. More worryingly, fails to acknowledge that people have a human right to congregate, even in a private club, to indulge in something that is not illegal where they would not impact the health of others not wishing to partake. Private clubs are just that - private places.

• Given sentencing trends on the island, this act is highly likely to result in people going to prison where, ironically, many people believe smoking should be allowed to continue.

• Other than through this ‘consultation’ exercise, the public was not generally consulted in the debates leading up to this proposed legislation, and government and health officials have led these debates mainly alongside publicans and breweries, with the majority of debate focused on commerce and health. Moreover, as the proposed Act bears no resemblance to the majority of the comments raised during the consultation, in its present form the proposed Act demonstrates that the majority of these comments have been ignored.

• Does not address the issue that pressure from businesses for an all round ban and a so called ‘level playing field’ is not in the interest of consumers. Businesses may pay taxes, but it is consumers that pay businesses and businesses should adapt to meet changing consumer demands. Given that there is, apparently, such a demand for non-smoking premises why does the government believe such premises have not already appeared in the market place? This lack of debate also raises significant questions with regard to the Manx politics of policing the behaviour of its less powerful populations, who are statistically less likely to understand the detail of any such one-off consultation, yet who are far more likely to be affected by its consequences.

• Fails to acknowledge the likely reconfiguration of the division between pub and street life, when smokers will stand outside pubs to smoke often for the entire evening, with increased safety risks for both customers and staff by increasing the potential for harassment and violence.

• Fails to acknowledge that public houses on the Isle of Man have long been identified as sites of community, solidarity and sociability.

• Will damage many more businesses and organisations on the Island than has so far been previously acknowledged or discussed.

• Is unclear in instances such as: where one person works from his/her own home, where households employ cleaners, babysitters, tradesmen etc.

• Fails to address that totally pure air is unachievable and the range and level of pollutants already present in enclosed public spaces, particularly in towns, from vehicle emissions though unseen, are often similar in level and content to those associated with passive smoking. The proposed Act and consultation has failed to consider in sufficient depth whether properly installed and maintained ventilation equipment can protect non-smokers from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. This consultation has failed to take into account evidence provided to other enquiries regarding the current capability of ventilation equipment, that are seen as perfectly capable of removing the problem of ETS from e.g. most public houses.

• Fails to acknowledge the possibility of issuing regulations on the specification and maintenance of ventilation equipment, and the possibility of setting acceptable limits for exposure to ETS as happens with other pollutants, and to allow standards of clean air to be enforced where smoking is permitted.

• Sees the apparent vulnerability of some groups e.g. pregnant women, people suffering from asthma etc. to even very low levels of ETS as justification for the introduction of a ban in ALL enclosed spaces, even when there are greater social issues such as smoking in the presence of children at home, coal fires, alcohol, dampness and poverty (the most dangerous factor of all) that impact peoples health on the island.

• Changes the potential future of Manx politics. This is an important single issue to many people, not just those within the 25% of the population affected, and motivation enough perhaps for some individuals and private business owners affected by such legislation to stand as candidates in elections or change their voting habits as they see the island becoming intolerant – e.g. moving further away from Liberal democracy and any willingness to compromise.

• Fails to acknowledge or address that the employment rights of workers in the hospitality industry can be adapted and protected in law, not forcing them to work in such environments (including enforcing adequate ventilation systems and their right not to work in a particular area) and protecting their interests should they wish to leave such establishments. Also fails to acknowledge the higher prevalence of smoking amongst workers in the hospitality sector and that a significant proportion of workers would be prepared to work in premises where smoking was permitted. Removes the right of existing employees to smoke in establishments where smoking is currently permitted, often by customer demand, and where adult customers have freedom of choice to enter.

• Fails to acknowledge the extent to which private properties will be affected and sets a precedent that may impact future legislation. The phrase "private property" is absent from this act, which seems to overlook the idea that restaurants, bars and workplaces are private businesses (often the home of licensees), and fails to acknowledge that private property rights are often more efficient than government control to reconcile smokers' and anti-smokers' preferences, given an opportunity or incentive to do so.

• The failure of non-smoking locals to support the “No Smoking” trial at the Railway Hotel in Douglas, even though this, then recently upgraded, public house is close to one of the largest supermarkets on the island suggested no immediate market support for such a draconian ban, and by inference, suggests an overall fall in sales if such a ban were to be implemented by statute. If feeling was so high why did locals not immediately adopt and demonstrate support for such a move?

• Demonstrates a high level of intolerance that many people on the island would not wish to see imposed on any significant minority group. Raises questions regarding the rights and remit of policy-makers versus individual freedoms. Fails to acknowledge the human rights of smokers, and that the majority of adult smokers are already aware of the health risks associated with smoking and are thus making an informed choice of lifestyle. Fails to acknowledge that all people die, but the majority of people would prefer to live for 50 years in a country with freedom of choice than for 100 years in a dictatorship (provided that such freedom of choice does not impact others adversely).

• ‘Information’ predominately consists of research by interest groups, anecdotal reports based on experience, opinion polls, individual viewpoints, with much of this anecdotal evidence used to illustrate and reinforce different points. There is no mention of the difference in findings between limited exposure to ETS and the long-term exposure risk of ETS to children if smokers are encouraged to smoke at home. There is little mention that the Isle of Man Government tobacco strategy uses information from ASH an anti-smoking charity. As Government is elected to represent the people, in fairness lobby groups from both sides should either have had no direct influence on this questionnaire, or have been given equal status, and respondents’ should have been given a fair presentation of views.

• As several people have apparently died from the effects of ETS, the Isle of Man Government should be able to name individuals (from public death records) that have died as a result of ETS on the island to back up this evidence with unarguable facts.

• On this ‘evidence’, why is the government refraining from banning tobacco completely?

• This proposed Act and the consultation document upon which it is based is a poor way to address an important topic, and represents a further step towards voter apathy and a boost to special interests groups usurping democracy, often using fears aided by the media, with little thought given to the consequences to the damage this will cause by ‘shifting’ the problem to other vulnerable groups in society.

[catchy]

Very well thought out and researched Mr Tatlock,and extremely thought provoking, this propsal is so ill-considered it is incredible it has got this far. Of course there has been much propaganda aimed at the general public and many believe what they are told without question.

Forgive my ignorance, but what are you planning to do with your research and comments?

[Albert Tatlock]

A similar version of the above posts was submitted in response to the proposed Act several months ago, however, no response was received, and few of these points ever get mentioned during debates on this topic. By the way, I have no involvement with any organisations (pubs, breweries, ASH, Forest, politics etc.), but care deeply about hard earned civil liberties.

 

This is ‘thin end of the wedge’ stuff. Imagine the health lobby banning music in bars because music has been ‘proven’ to damage hearing and can influence peoples thoughts, and the music affects other people in the bar forced to listen to it - with breweries actively lobbying that it should even be banned in private clubs in order to create a ‘level playing field’ for them. Surely the Kaiser Chiefs (I predict a riot) are guilty of promoting civil unrest and should be banned from playing in public places and private clubs?

[Mr. Sausages]

How about adults not smoking around kids? I know it's a bit of crazy notion, but it just might work.

[Frances]

The long response would appear to criticise the proposals on several counts:

(a) poor process of consultation - not sure why ,as it has been talked about for some time, plus the Scottish and Irish precedents

(B) since it cannot be 100% effective then it is not worth doing - a non-sequitur as even partial reduction in smoking will improve the nation's healt and reduce costs

©smokers have a 'right' to pollute the air the rest of us breathe - personally I would support a total ban of smoking in any public highway or place of commerce etc where people have to go for reasons of pleasure, business etc - this 'right' of smokers to pollute my air is dangerous nonsense.

(d) control of private premises/clubs on grounds of levelling the playing field - this is about the only ground I have some sympathy with the civil liberties argument, if it were possible to frame a law controlling membership of such clubs (ie that it was not just a legal device to avoid the legislation) then I would have sympathy for such establishments providing they filter the exhaust air and all staff have a choice of working in them. However we already have much legislation that impinges on private property for the good of the individual - seatbelts. fire regulations in flats, housewiring by unqualified pernsons etc so it is not a new idea to restrict such private rights.

 

 

Re loud music at clubs - the EU has alraedy brought in legislation that restricts time averaged sound levels - these vary from limiting the sound levels on ipods etc sold in EU to noise restrictions in industry - again the polluter has no right to poluute other's spaces

[haX0red_Account]

- just think that if pubs needed smokers to survive then they have a fundamentally fragile business therefore there are more than are truly needed and some need culling.

[Albert Tatlock]

By the way…the loud music analogy was tongue in cheek! However...

 

o Talking a long time about something does not amount to consultation. I’m sure the Germans weren’t ‘consulting’ with the Poles before finally invading in 1939. Regardless of what people might think, the resulting legislation, in effect, proves that this is a health department and brewery discussion only – as comments made during the ‘consultation’ have not even been considered. In the UK it was the breweries and pub associations (that own 98% of pubs) that did for the compromise in order to create a level playing field for themselves. We should control businesses through our choices – not vice versa.

 

o ‘The nations health’ - ‘The nation’ consists of a democracy, with human rights and civil liberties that have been fought for by millions of people. A nation or government becoming bigger than its people is one of the basic ingredients of a police state, as is the persecution of significant minorities.

 

o No-one is asking to directly pollute someone else’s air…just that smokers have as much right to ask non-smokers not to insist on being on the same premises where they happen to be smoking, especially where those premises are private property such as a private club or a pub permitted to allow smoking. This should be market choice and adult choice.

 

o ‘Ban smoking on public highways’ Many people do not understand science and the planet and the environment we live in. The earths atmosphere is ‘adiabatic’ – which means nothing ever leaves (except heat, rockets and astronauts). The water we drink has been previously drank and excreted by millions of dinosaurs and probably several scousers long before we get to drink it, and if the air in the world is mixed evenly then every breath we take will contain two atoms of Julius Caesar’s last breath – and come to think of it, his last fart. There are also millions of other nasty particles which do damage such as radicals, naturally occurring radiation and the billions of nasty viruses and bacteria we inhale every day. People should also be concerned with the quarter of Chernobyl that landed on the Isle of Man in the 1980’s and the long term damage that has caused – but if we can’t see it how can it hurt us? !

 

o People do not have the right to tell me how to live my life, provided I do no damage to them. Where will this end? - with me being escorted by a non-smoking gymnast around Tesco’s telling me what to buy or told how many ‘polluting children’ to have? If people want to help people’s health – they should go to Africa – where many will be grateful for that help.

 

o One of the common arguments used by the health lobby is that air cannot be filtered. As an engineer I think this is tripe, and if it weren’t, we would all be choking with power station and noxious industrial fumes – and a rise in CO2 levels would be the least of our problems.

 

o The majority of the regulations mentioned apply to landlords and others selling services to others. If people want to sit at home in the bath with an electric fire they are still allowed to do so – but are rightly advised of the dangers.

[iomcombat]

So then, because smokers may decide to smoke and drink at home we should let them force their smoke on the rest of us?

Lets be honest here, if you smoke and you don't want to stop you are obviously a bit thick. Its bad for you, expensive and has no benefits. It is hard to quit and it takes some people a hell of a lot of effort but this sort of legislation will encourage people not to smoke. As a culture we have spent lots of time making smoking socially acceptable. Now its about time we gave the younger generation the correct idea that its bloody idiotic and not to be encouraged, before they all start. And the best way to do that is to not encourage it. Lets face it the best approach would be to ban it but we all know thats not going to happen. The next best option is to discourage it as much as possible by limited bans.

"People do not have the right to tell me how to live my life, provided I do no damage to them. Where will this end? "

Indeed, provided you do no damage to them. If there is the risk of damaging them then its needs to be stopped. If you want to kill yourself slowly and painfully that is your choice, passive smoking affects others who have made the choice not to smoke tho, which is both idiotic and selfish.

[molly]

I have always found it strange that the pro smoking argument that more folk smoking at home with cause health problems for kids etc. when on the other hand saying that passive smoking doesnt harm anyone.

 

Sooner its banned the better for me.Pubs may lose out but then they have had it good for years.

[Heathen]

I have always found it strange that the pro smoking argument that more folk smoking at home with cause health problems for kids etc. when on the other hand saying that passive smoking doesnt harm anyone.

 

Sooner its banned the better for me.Pubs may lose out but then they have had it good for years.

 

 

Ooh I like that one B)

[Albert Tatlock]

My argument is that if people wish to congregate to smoke, there are many businesses and private clubs that are willing to be set aside for them to do so - where they will do no damage to others and be encouraged to carry out their habit away from others and vulnerable individuals. It is an argument about rights – not wrongs.

 

Surely if you eat bacon butties you are a ‘bit thick’, if you don’t eat five portions of fruit and veg or work out every day you must be a ‘bit thick’, if you don’t have a degree or earn over £30K you must be a ‘bit thick’, and if you vote for either a conservative, labour or liberal democrat biased MHK then two thirds of the population might think you must be a ‘bit thick’. In a true democracy we all have the right to be a ‘bit thick’ without someone telling us how ‘thick’ we should be.

 

The main problems with this issue is that people do not have an understanding of the science involved e.g. the difference between exposures to long term ETS and short term ETS, and are unwilling to discuss the wider implications of legislating against significant minorities, eloquently described by Martin Niemoeller:

 

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

[Frances]

Thankyou for the brief tutorial on adiabatic expansion - it is a long time since I sat my exams for C Eng - however just a couple of example,s given the present state of the apology for a bus station I am either forced to endure the polluting exhaust smoke of a generally ill educated teenager or stand outside in the rain and gale, walking down Strand street behind a smoker is very unpleasant

No argument that there are many other pollutants - Chernobyl debris is now somewhat difficult to filter so we have little choice other than the morning boat to avoid it (I don't eat meat), particulate exhaust from the numerous badly maintained diesel engines on the Island is one other cause that should be tackled, as IMO could be the use of coal fires but this discussion was about a major killer - tobacco smoke.

 

I had two uncles boths PC's die from lung cancer without enjoying their retirement - which cancer has one advantage in that it is somewhat quicker than some other cancers but neither felt that it was a sensible choice that they had made. My friend had to have a heart bypass due to a major heart attack (caused it would appear by childhood mechanical damage to a major artery) - on asking why he a very active non-smoker should suffer this he got the reply he survived- smokers didn't. During my tenure at university I heard a reseacher describe the results of a study into possible dietry causes for premature heart attacks (ie below 40 years I think) (we had a large indian population with a high fat intake) - the research was a no brainer - only one factor need be considered - smoker/non smoker. Likewise my friend whose heart attack may haver been triggered by the stress of his mother dying from a lingering cancer had to pass a certain ward in the hospital which was full of amputees - he asked the nursing staff what caused these thinking traffic accidents - 'No we call it the smokers' ward" - in his naviety and working on cabinside maintence of aircraft and well aware of the generally unreported number of cabin fires caused by smokers, asked wasn't it dangerous to allow smoking in a room full of low mobility patients - no came the answer they were smokers - obesity and smoking lead to circulation problems - some, he was told, needed a second visit to the ward before their will power increased enough to stop.

 

I don't know what has caused the present rise in teenage smoking - a decade or so ago virtually no academic staff smoked, it was the manual staff who complained when the University introduced a total no-smoking policy - before I left I was surprised at the number of students who did smoke

[Virginia P]

Alberta -

 

Its not your fault. That Nicotine Devil whispering in your ear has changed your body chemistry.

 

You have no control at the moment.

 

He even makes you Google against our will.

 

Powerful little bugger.

[iomcombat]

"Surely if you eat bacon butties you are a ‘bit thick’, if you don’t eat five portions of fruit and veg or work out every day you must be a ‘bit thick’, if you don’t have a degree or earn over £30K you must be a ‘bit thick’, and if you vote for either a conservative, labour or liberal democrat biased MHK then two thirds of the population might think you must be a ‘bit thick’. In a true democracy we all have the right to be a ‘bit thick’ without someone telling us how ‘thick’ we should be."

 

No, if you do something which has no positive effects and a huge number of negative ones which generally result in a variety of painful and slow deaths, then you are a bit thick.