Will Pubs Survive?

[Juan Kerr]

In ten years time there will probably be an EU Directive stopping drinking in pubs on health grounds so we might as well go with the flow on this as they'll have to close then.

[Gladys]

I'm sorry, reading the arguments for and against (and I am a smoker), the answer is to ban tobacco surely? But what government has the b*llocks to do so? The fear of loss of support from the smoking electorate, the loss of either tax revenue or the funding from tobacco companies (who, no doubt, in some contorted way do fund political parties) all adds up to a very hypocritical stand. Make it illegal entirely, don't just skirt around the subject.

 

There must be some mandarin somewhere who knows why it isn't banned entirely, but is fully aware that the sensible choice (i.e. an outright ban) would create such a huge hole in the coffers that it would entail some even more unpopular decisions to fill it! And before we have the rush of how much it costs to treat a smoker, just remember people will still need treatment or die from other chronic illnesses.

 

So from a governmental point of view they have a cash cow, but just continue to kick it!

 

Only two certainties in life; death and taxation. Here the two are inextricably linked!

[LoneWolf]

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.

 

All of your posts on this subject have been top notch and are difficult to argue against. Not that I would want to as I find myself in agreement with your thinking.

There are one or two difficulties with the main thrust of your thoughts though which cant be ignored.

First of all people cannot, as far as I am aware, contract away their statutory rights.

In particular, I am thinking of the protections put in place by Health and Safety at Work legislation.

You might argue that employees can be adequately protected by installation of efficient ventilation and filtration systems but I doubt this would cut the mustard when measured against the simple and absolute effectiveness of a ban in the workplace. It would fail any credible test of cost v risk.

Secondly, and given the existence of legislation, such as H&S at Work, together with strong statistical evidence of a linkage between passive smoking and serious health problems, there is a very strong driver for employers to enforce a ban, even if the legislation does not materialise. Fear of litigation, in other words, is a strong driver for employers to implement their own ban irrespective of any specific anti smoking legislation.

This might not be good news for those of us who want to carry on smoking in enclosed public places. However, it does seem to me a ban was always inevitable.

This brings us to the Civil Liberties argument. Ive spent a good many years as an activist and member of various Civil Liberty organisations but I just cannot see the linkage between a smoking ban and a constraint of material Civil Liberties. I dont really think your argument on rights has a lot of mileage in it sorry.

Having said that Im going to the back door to have a smoke.

[catchy]

This brings us to the Civil Liberties argument. Ive spent a good many years as an activist and member of various Civil Liberty organisations but I just cannot see the linkage between a smoking ban and a constraint of material Civil Liberties. I dont really think your argument on rights has a lot of mileage in it sorry.

Having said that Im going to the back door to have a smoke.

Do our civil liberties not extend to being free to open a business without unnecessary involvement from government. If I were to open a business, such as a pub, and want to allow smoking within why should I be forbidden? I can open a boxing club where the intent is to damage a willing participant but I cannot allow willing participants in smoking to congregate in my business or try to attract them? No, the arguments have little merit, nobody is forced to enter smoking premises, many talk as if they have no choice whereas the opposite is true, they chose to enter. That smoking causes annoyance is of little doubt, but that is not grounds for such erosion of liberty. Market forces are currently dictating a big increase in non-smoking establishments and if allowed to develop and continue unchecked perhaps we could settle for chosing those establishments that suit our needs without resorting to oppresive legislation on those that don't?

[Albert Tatlock]

To me civil liberties have always been a set of values concerning individual freedom and the limits of government intervention in our lives. Civil liberties define the importance of liberty and that we should treat each other with respect and dignity. Civil liberties are a collection of rights that apply to individuals - and these rights grant individuals special protection under the law, in areas such as: privacy, access to information, freedom of speech, freedom of association, as well as legal and political rights.

 

The main argument here is about freedom of association; not whether smoking kills which none of us dispute; and whether freedom of association should be dictated by the health lobby and/or business interests.

 

Many of the arguments in the smoking debate are equally applicable to the euthanasia debate. I believe that if people wish to ‘commit suicide’ by smoking, it is their right to do so, provided they do not affect anyone else unwilling to freely associate in such an environment. And there is clearly a market demand for such environments.

 

Statutory rights are those terms that are implied by law, but what I am saying is that politicians should not legislate against freedom of association to create those statutory rights in the first instance. There are adequate ways to ensure that employees in the hospitality sector (many of whom smoke) are made contractually aware of the risks in working in smoking environments, just as smokers are made contractually aware by health insurance companies and pay higher premiums when they take out policies. People still work with asbestos and we all make choices about our own employment.

 

Moreover, anything can become inevitable when no-one is prepared to speak out against it.

[LoneWolf]

There are adequate ways to ensure that employees in the hospitality sector (many of whom smoke) are made contractually aware of the risks in working in smoking environments, just as smokers are made contractually aware by health insurance companies and pay higher premiums when they take out policies. People still work with asbestos and we all make choices about our own employment.

 

 

The problem with that argument is it doesnt cut the mustard at all. It certainly isnt adequate uder existing legislation to merely make employees aware of the risks of working in any particular environment. In the case of smoking there is no argument that a cost v risk assessment would find a total workplace ban is the most effective and most cost effective method of compliance. The analogy with asbestos workers is a poor one. Asbestos is a valuable material and cannot, at the moment, be banned. There is no intention to ban smoking either, merely in enclosed public places including workplaces. Employers are required to protect their employees having regard to cost v risk. Asbestos workers have to be supplied with personal protective equipment and environmental measures have to be taken as well.

The whole smoking ban legislation thing is being driven by H&S at Work and Im afraid its hard to imagine that exceptions could be workable.

The best thing for pubs to do, IMHO, would be to make some sort of provision for smokers which complies with the legislation. It shouldnt be difficult to do and a model exists in Ireland already.

 

Moreover, anything can become inevitable when no-one is prepared to speak out against it.

 

A sweeping statement which, in common with most sweeping statements, doesnt quite hit the target. I argued a ban would be inevitable, even without the new legislation, because of the current situation regarding H&S at Work and the consequent risk of litigation.

How many court cases do you imagine it would take before employers instituted a total ban anyhow, irrespective of anti smoking legislation, in their premises ? Not many !

The legislation has nothing to do with freedom of association as I understand it. I dont think you could possibly make an argument that it does.

[Grumble]

My sister works in the UK health service. Some time ago smoking was banned within NHS buildings, but 'smoking shelters' were built in the hospital grounds for patients and staff to use instead.

 

Then they were removed. So my sister designated her car - in the staff carpark - as a place she and her staff could take their breaks and have a smoke.

 

That's all been stopped now too. It's no smoking anywhere on the premises, inside or out. The next move will be to ban smoking at the hospital gates. After that, no doubt smoking will be banned anywhere on a work day.

 

I'm with Glad - they should just ban tobacco sales. Heard on the radio that in the UK tobacco taxes raise £9.5 BILLION a year, of which only a quarter is spent on smoking-related disease. So £7 bigguns a year is propping up their economy - and I'm sure it's a similar percentage here.

 

How hypocritical then to take the tax money yet launch such a concerted witch-hunt of propoganda against us smokers. We don't dispute that it's a bad and dangerous habit for participants (less convinced by the proof against passive smoking, but with enough research they'll no doubt manufacture a compelling case), so if it's such a no-brainer, let's have a complete tobacco ban.

[GD4ELI]

Many of the arguments in the smoking debate are equally applicable to the euthanasia debate. I believe that if people wish to ‘commit suicide’ by smoking, it is their right to do so, provided they do not affect anyone else unwilling to freely associate in such an environment. And there is clearly a market demand for such environments.

I have no problem with all smokers dieing as a result of their perverse ways, I have no problem with the suffering the same extreme pain as a non-smoking friend.

 

I object to the smell and lack of respect they have for me.

 

I look forward to the smoking ban, it can't come soon enough.

[iomcombat]

"I can open a boxing club where the intent is to damage a willing participant but I cannot allow willing participants in smoking to congregate in my business or try to attract them? "

 

No you can't. With adequete insurance training and safety gear you can open a boxing club where the intent is to train people how to box safely. If it is in any way unsafe or the insurace is inadequete or you are not fully qualified then you are opening yourself up for a whole host of insurace claims. And boxing doesn't damage anyone standing nearby. And their are a damn site fewer deaths per year from boxing than from smoking. So the analogy sort of sucks.

[Albert Tatlock]

…but of course you can enter the TT or the Manx Grand Prix, where people who are killed or seriously injured (riders, officials and spectators) tend to be named – unlike those dying from passive smoking due to short term exposure to ETS.

 

I suppose you think that analogy 'sucks' too?

 

You are missing the main point here….which is freedom of association, which means we all have the freedom to associate with anyone we choose, including racing in the TT.

 

Freedom of association also includes freedom of choice with whom we do not wish to associate (i.e. in this case non-smokers), or perhaps not racing in, or even watching the TT.

 

No one group has the right to take away a perfectly legal freedom of association – no matter how they feel about it, although they have a right not to be associated with it. The danger is that in a few years time your own arguments will come back and bite you on the backside, when you might be arguing for something you want to retain. But always remember …that you were involved in encouraging legislators to set the precedent!

[Mr. Sausages]

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.

 

To suggest that pubs are performing some sort of service to the health of children by giving their parents somewhere to smoke is absolutely absurd. How can it be good for a kid if their parents spend their evenings in the pub instead of looking after them?

 

If these bad parents resort to smoking at home around their kids when pubs ban it (which you can bet they do already when they're not at the pub), then it's their fault if their smoke affects their kids health.

[Albert Tatlock]

With regard to Health and Safety…and we are talking about certain pubs here, where people choose to freely associate and socialise, and not places of employment such as offices i.e. where people may not have a choice as to whether to enter or not:

 

Legislation to put warnings on cigarette packets went ahead

Legislation to ban advertising on TV etc. went ahead

Legislation on the sale of cigarettes to young people went ahead

Legislation on contracts of employment went ahead

 

If the landlord and employees of a private establishment choose to allow smoking on private premises, it would not be hard to legislate on putting a single clause in an employees contract and a landlords tenancy agreement to specify the risks and thus remove the risk of litigation.

 

At the same time legislation could be enacted to financially protect non-smoking employees, if they decided they did not want to work in such premises from that point onwards, and needed to find suitable employment elsewhere, either in another establishment or other sector. This would be a one off exercise, not an ongoing cost.

[Albert Tatlock]

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.

 

To suggest that pubs are performing some sort of service to the health of children by giving their parents somewhere to smoke is absolutely absurd. How can it be good for a kid if their parents spend their evenings in the pub instead of looking after them?

 

If these bad parents resort to smoking at home around their kids when pubs ban it (which you can bet they do already when they're not at the pub), then it's their fault if their smoke affects their kids health.

 

There is a major difference between the risks from long term and short term exposure to ETS. If parents insist on smoking but are encouraged to smoke away from their children, it has to be better for their children by helping to reduce the level of LONG TERM exposure. With no run-off area they will naturally go to the off-licence, grab a film, and drink and smoke at home (as is the case in Ireland).

 

People with children deserve a night out now and again, it relaxes them, which surely makes for better parents.

 

As many as 30% of children start on cigarettes at school, which is where in this debate I think we are all missing a major point i.e. the real answer to reducing the prevalence of smoking. If additional people were employed (teachers, assistants, dinner ladies etc.) to ensure that no children left the school at break time, or sneaked off to quiet corners of the school to congregate and smoke, teenage smoking would reduce significantly within a couple of years. Most people don't start smoking in pubs at age 18.

 

If you believe schools if they say that they police this adequately...think again.

[Mr. Sausages]

There is a major difference between the risks from long term and short term exposure to ETS. If parents insist on smoking but are encouraged to smoke away from their children, it has to be better for their children by helping to reduce the level of LONG TERM exposure. With no run-off area they will naturally go to the off-licence, grab a film, and drink and smoke at home (as is the case in Ireland).

 

People with children deserve a night out now and again, it relaxes them, which surely makes for better parents.

If they only go out to the pub to smoke "now and again" then it's not going to have much effect on their kids.

 

You're right, they should be encouraged to smoke away from their kids - I.e. out of the house. That doesn't mean it has to be in a pub. What's wrong with standing in a garden? If the removal of a pub as an option means they will "naturally" smoke around their kids, then they are "naturally" bad parents. You can't blame legislation for that.

[ian rush]

Front side of T-shirt - Support your local pub

 

Back side of T shirt - Drink like a fish, Smoke like a beagle