70 replies to this topic

[LittleOne]

should the smoking ban be stopped

thinking of the elerly who like to go for an evening meal and made to sit in the cold winter breeze making them ill and possible lead to a faster death
think of the children that are affected by second-hand smoke
is it fair to force people to stop smoking when alchol kills more people!

[Georgina]

Im afraid im for the ban! I remember when i used to go clubbing before the ban or to a pub and had to sit in smoke filled rooms which irritaed my throat and made my clothes stink, also because i wear contact lenses it made my eyes hurt after some time.

I understand smokers not wanting to be out in the cold or rain espeicaly over winter and can understand its sometimes not a case of "just give it up" as it is an addiction after all but its deffinatley helped my friends quit or even lower their intake as they have so much fun inside now without needing to smoke and almost forget about having a cig for a while.

Sorry smokers!

[LittleOne]

i am 50/50 on it i am a smoker and dont mind smoking outside as its a family rule and so i'm used to it but last winter a friend of mine aged 83 went outside for a ciggy (with a cold) and developed pneumonia a week later she passed

[artificial]

I'm 100% for the smoking ban (not too sure about the UK-specific guidelines, but the Australian ban is great). While I tolerate it, I hate breathing in SHS. I mean, in a pub fair enough, but when you're sitting in a cafe having breakfast the last thing you want is to be bombarded with smoke.

[LittleOne]

i agree with that which is why they should just stop smoking in places like hospital college etc and in places that serve food other than that y stop us from smoking wen we having a drink at the pub..........if non-smokers want fresh clean air why cant they go outside! lol just kidding

[jcrdude]

The following has to do with my experiences in Maryland when a similar ban was put into effect.

I know several bar/restaurant owners who were hit hard by the smoking ban.

On the other side of things, the crowds have been evened out between bars/restaurants a bit.

Former places that were strict non-smoking have seen an increase.

One of my favorite places to go was a little place nearby that had pretty good food AND a smoking section. It was nice to just sit and have a cig and talk with my friends while I was waiting for my food. Without the smoking section, half of the advantage of going there disappeared, and the place has since gone under. In retrospect, I felt kinda bad for them since I know I was helping their bottom line but stopped contributing as much once the ban was put into effect.

[Oaken]

Anyone in the UK that smokes and thinks the ban should be lifted is an ignorant asshole.....and if you don't smoke but think the ban should be removed then you are just a giant asshole.

I don't want to breathe in that shit. If I did then I would smoke.

[Qwerty54]

I support the ban. I feel smoking is a disgusting addiction, and while I understand that it is in fact an addiction, I think I should have the right not to be exposed to it.

[jcrdude]

I support the ban. I feel smoking is a disgusting addiction, and while I understand that it is in fact an addiction, I think I should have the right not to be exposed to it.

I understand this, but there is nothing from the shop owners that said they HAVE to let people smoke (I don't think). They always had the option of becoming a non-smoking establishment, right? Why couldn't more people have just said "we don't like the smokers in xxxxx place." If it was financially prudent to elimintae smoking, it would have been done, because that's just good business. I don't think the government should step in on a personal choice like this.

[Oaken]

Smokers will still go to all the same places that they went before the ban so it really doesn't affect anyone except the non-smokers....who now don't have to breathe in other peoples poison through no choice of their own.

[Qwerty54]

I understand this, but there is nothing from the shop owners that said they HAVE to let people smoke (I don't think). They always had the option of becoming a non-smoking establishment, right? Why couldn't more people have just said "we don't like the smokers in xxxxx place." If it was financially prudent to elimintae smoking, it would have been done, because that's just good business. I don't think the government should step in on a personal choice like this.

Actually, it will likely increase revenue for some establishments. Here is why:

If a resteraunt had tons of smokers in it all the time, I would avoid it regardless of food/ect. Now, if I want to go to that place, I can. The smokers will still go there. Therefore, they will get business of people like me.

[Bryan]

Actually, it will likely increase revenue for some establishments. Here is why:

If a resteraunt had tons of smokers in it all the time, I would avoid it regardless of food/ect. Now, if I want to go to that place, I can. The smokers will still go there. Therefore, they will get business of people like me.

And that same logic could be applied to jcr's post. Smoking ban should have little to no effect on a business.

I'm a smoker, I smoke a lot. I despise secondhand smoke. I am totally for banning smoking in public places. However, I do believe there should be more designated smoking areas (at least in America). I'm the type of smoker that will hide my cigarette if I pass children or I will hold in the breath if I am next to someone without cigarette. I feel that if I don't like secondhand smoke, as a smoker, than they wont like it either.

In regards to clubs and bars and the like, just go outside. Elderly that are too cold to sit outside for fear of death probably shouldn't be out to eat in the first place and stepping outside and smoking actually helps me sober up and drink more.

[Noitidart]

Tobacco tax = more money for governement. That's why the US won't ban it. Did the UK really ban it?

[jcrdude]

I'm the type of smoker that will hide my cigarette if I pass children or I will hold in the breath if I am next to someone without cigarette.

I do this as well... I always feel like an asshole for smoking near children.

And when there were smoking sections in restaurants, I found that kids and non-smokers were hardly there.

Those situations were really best for all parties.

Smokers had their section where they could smoke if they so chose, and non-smokers had clean, smoke-free areas if they so chose.

If I were out with a group of non-smokers, I would head into the smoking section and return. It was no different socially than the current plan, but it was much more comfortable physically.

[Bryan]

Tobacco tax = more money for governement. That's why the US won't ban it. Did the UK really ban it?

The UK banned it in public institutions I believe.

Also, there's no tobacco tax in Virginia.

And when there were smoking sections in restaurants, I found that kids and non-smokers were hardly there.

However, if there were children there, it was likely because both of their parents smoked and they were forced to sit in a room full of smoke.

[jcrdude]

However, if there were children there, it was likely because both of their parents smoked and they were forced to sit in a room full of smoke.

This is true, but never took place where I went... so I didn't have to feel like a douche.

[Sweeney]

If it was financially prudent to elimintae smoking, it would have been done, because that's just good business. I don't think the government should step in on a personal choice like this.

It's actually because it wasn't financially prudent that the government has to legislate it.
It's financially prudent for Microsoft to monopolise the word processing market, but fair trading laws force them not to take the steps that would make this happen.

[pyke]

Good luck trying to ban it.

[jcrdude]

It's actually because it wasn't financially prudent that the government has to legislate it.
It's financially prudent for Microsoft to monopolise the word processing market, but fair trading laws force them not to take the steps that would make this happen.

Does this mean that there weren't enough people vocal about it to the local businesses but there WERE enough people vocal about it to the government?

Why should the government tell a business what they can do on a personal matter like allowing smoking in their place of business?

To a certain extent, I can see your parallel to monopolization, but that is a course of action that would push other businesses out of the market, not a choice that affects the way that patrons behave while using their products or services, so it is a rather poor parallel.

Now if you can find a good medical survey (that isn't heavily biased in its testing mechanisms) on the negative effects of second-hand smoke, then I may be able to concede a point. All studies that I have seen thus far on either end of the spectrum have been heavily biased if not scientifically unsound. Most of the arguments I have seen tend to stem from single-person's tales of woe one way or the other. Either "I felt like crap" or "I lost my business."

I don't think those types of results are enough to base a government ban on something that's legal.

[Frizzle]

Smokers will still go to all the same places that they went before the ban so it really doesn't affect anyone except the non-smokers....who now don't have to breathe in other peoples poison through no choice of their own.

And that same logic could be applied to jcr's post. Smoking ban should have little to no effect on a business.

I'm a smoker, I smoke a lot. I despise secondhand smoke. I am totally for banning smoking in public places. However, I do believe there should be more designated smoking areas (at least in America). I'm the type of smoker that will hide my cigarette if I pass children or I will hold in the breath if I am next to someone without cigarette. I feel that if I don't like secondhand smoke, as a smoker, than they wont like it either.

In regards to clubs and bars and the like, just go outside. Elderly that are too cold to sit outside for fear of death probably shouldn't be out to eat in the first place and stepping outside and smoking actually helps me sober up and drink more.

Pub trade suffering from smoking ban

Pubs across the country have lost so much trade as a result of the smoking ban that some are now entitled to a tax cut.
By Patrick Hennessy
Published: 1:21PM GMT 08 Nov 2008

The hardest-hit establishments could be in line for reductions in their business rates, potentially worth thousands of pounds a year, according to newly-disclosed official documents.

The decision has come about because tax inspectors, after consulting legal counsel, now accept that the smoking ban represents a "material change" to the trading position of pubs.


Related Articles

• 
  Row that has taxed the normally well disposed RICS
• 
  Council tax 'stealth rise' hits 70,000 homes

When the ban was first introduced in July 2007, amid claims by health campaigners than smoke-free would attract more drinkers into pubs, tax inspectors said that the new law would not represent a material change in either direction to their trading position.

As a result of the initial flawed advice, the Government's Valuation Office Agency (VOA) refused to give pubs any rate reduction for loss of business.

Last night the Conservatives accused ministers of "ripping off" of pubs and "covering up" vital information that could stop locals going out of business. Currently four are closing every day according to the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA).

The blunder was exposed after Tories obtained previously-unpublished guidance from the VOA on how firms should be charged business rates.

Pubs can now use the finding that the smoking ban is harming their trade to make a claim to lower the "rateable value" of their premises – cutting their bills every year. However, they can only do so if they make an application, fill out complex forms and, in the words of the VOA, "satisfy the general requirements for validity including sufficient wording to identify the nature and date of the change".

The Government has made no announcement about the potential for tax reductions for pubs.

Eric Pickles, the shadow local government secretary, said: "Whilst massive pub chains may be making money out of Labour's 24-hour drinking laws, small everyday pubs are suffering from the onslaught of higher beer taxes, a weakening economy, supermarkets selling alcohol below cost price and the public smoking ban.

"Whatever people's views on the smoking ban, it has been a significant change that has affected many pubs. The Government's own tax inspectors have now admitted that pubs may be eligible for refunds on their business rates, but pub owners are being intentionally kept in the dark on this U-turn. This is yet another tax cover-up from the same bureaucrats who have conspired to hide council tax errors.

"Thanks to Whitehall secrecy and this stealth pub tax, local firms are going to the wall and everyday pub goers are being hit in the wallet."

The VOA's guidance on setting ratable values, updated in June this year to include advice on the smoking ban, states: "It was not considered that this change [the smoking ban] could constitute a MCC [material change of circumstance] and earlier versions of this advice reflected this. Advice from counsel now shows this view to be wrong that the ban on smoking can be a matter affecting the physical enjoyment of a hereditament.

"In considering smoking ban proposals, VOs [valuation officers] need to envisage what rent would be have been paid for the hereditament at the AVD [original valuation date] assuming the ban was then in place affecting both the subject premises and other premises ... Proposals citing the ban on smoking should be re-examined."

Unlike council tax, business rates are based on the 'rateable value' of the property. For every pound that this rateable value is increased or decreased, the final business rates bill will rise or fall by 44p – so a reduction in rateable value of £5,000 because of the smoking ban would see a pub's business rate fall by £2,200 a year.

The BBPA estimates that pubs – hit by the effects of the ban, declining consumer confidence and the credit crunch, are now closing at the rate of 27 a week. This is seven times faster than in 2006 and 15 times faster than in 2005.

• Email
• Print

• Share
• |

• Email
• |
• Print

Text Size http://www.telegraph...moking-ban.html TelegraphNews
Politics
Get feed updates
News
Get feed updates
Drinks
Get feed updates
Tobacco
Get feed updates
Finance
Get feed updates
Smoking ban leaves pubs worse for wear
Robert Lea and Simon English, Evening Standard
16 June 2008, 1:21pm Reader comments (1) One year ago, the smoking ban - a law some said would devastate Britain's pubs - came into place.



Profits up in smoke: Pubs have suffered after the smoking ban
WANT TO KNOW MORE?

• Fullers leads way as pubs return to health
• Enterprise Inns rallies on REIT move
• Rank finds smoking ban still a choker

OTHER STORIES

• Asset sale sends pound to six-month lows
• FTSE latest: BP, Vodafone up; Randgold down
• Sunday newspaper share tips
• Co-op gains on rivals as shoppers go ethical
• Interest rates set to stay low for five years

FTSE LATEST
5218.9457.07


The big landlords have endured a tough 12 months, but critics say they have hardly helped themselves. The industry has been slow to adapt to consumer demands, failed to lure in different customers at different times of the day with a diverse range of offers - decent coffee, free Wi-Fi and complementary copies of the Evening Standard - to go with beer and proper food in the evening.

Steven Moore, analyst at Growth Equities & Company Research, said: 'A key differentiator looks to have been the swiftness and ability of companies to respond with the provision of outside spaces with covering, lighting and heaters.

'Although the climate the companies now find themselves in is undeniably challenging, there is some encouragement.

'The evidence from Scotland, where the smoking ban came in earlier, is that customers are drifting back as they get used to the ban.'

Which pub groups are still sparkling and which are suffering from a major hangover?

Mitchells & Butlers
An annus horribilis for the owner of All Bar One and O'Neill's. A disastrous piece of financial engineering intended to bring value out of its properties left it nursing a loss of £274m. In the six months to April, M&B had sales of £995m. while profits dipped £5 million to £84m.
Best London pub: The Flask, Hampstead.



Punch Taverns
Britain's largest landlord has had a rotten year. Its shares have collapsed by 70% as beer sales fell 10% with total <a href="http://www.thisismon.../like-for-like" target="_blank" class="jargon">like-for-like sales 3% worse and halfyear profits down 20%. Falling volumes and customer numbers have come at a time of rising energy and food costs.
Best London pub: The Three Compasses, Hornsey.



Enterprise Inns
The sprawling tenanted and leased pubs chain includes many thousands of country locals, which have had to work harder to repair the trade of the lost bar-propping smoker.



Its shares have fallen 35% in a year - not as much as others because of a likely change in tax status to a real estate investment trust, which will boost to shareholder dividend payments. Latest reports talk of an upturn in trade, though profits have been falling more than 10%.
Best London pub: Portobello Gold, Notting Hill.



Marston's
Best known for its Pedigree bitter, its pubs include some stalwarts of the City as well as the Pitcher & Piano chain. With the shares more than halved in a year and the latest figures showing profits down by almost 20%, 'resilient' was the best that chief executive Ralph Findlay could come up with when comparing his bars with the competition.

Findlay quipped that he would not bar the Chancellor of the Exchequer like other chains have done over the latest duty hikes; Marston's, said the chief executive, needs all the trade it can get.
Best London pub: Pavilion End, Watling Street in the City.



JD Wetherspoon
The most controversial pub chain among beer drinkers. It goes out of its way to offer a wide range of beers, and at cheaper prices - often a fifth less expensive - than you might find in the next pub up the road.

However, its pubs, which are all managed, are often decried as soulless, manufactured places. Its shares have cratered 60% since the fag ban, despite it leading the way by banning smoking in much of its estate even before it had to.

Sales are down by 1.5% over the last reported nine months. However, there seems to have been a pick-up in trading during the spring as it turned its pubs into all-day drop-in centres that offer breakfast, tea and coffee from 9am.
Best London pub: Hamilton Hall on Bishopsgate.



Greene King
It's not long since the company behind IPA and Old Speckled Hen was unveiling record profits. The chain of pubs, which includes the Loch Fyne seafood group, made £71m in the six months to December, but since then things have slowed.

Mark Brumby at Blue Oar Securities says: 'In a difficult market, Greene King understands the importance of staying very, very close to what's happening on the ground.

'The company is an immensely solid operator but times are tough.'
Best London pub: The Salt House, St John's Wood

Fuller Smith & Turner
Chairman Michael Turner has boldly gone where few have dared to tread, insisting that 'wet' pubs (ones that don't do food) can still thrive if the beer and the surroundings are good. In the 12 months to March, it pushed profits up by 4% to £23m. While others say pubs that don't do food will die, Turner insists beer is the future.
Best London pub: The Pilot, Greenwich.





Public smoking ban hits pubs' beer sales

• Buzz up!
• Digg it

• The Observer, Sunday 6 July 2008
• Article history

Pubs have sold 175 million fewer pints in the past year as a direct result of the smoking ban, according to market analysts AC Nielsen.

Jake Shepherd, marketing director AC Nielsen, said: 'The winter months were particularly bad. Sales fell nine per cent through November to January when smokers would have been reluctant to stand outside in the cold to have a cigarette.'

Sales of wine were not hit as hard, dropping four per cent after the ban. Shepherd said: 'Wine has held up somewhat better than other drinks, benefiting from the increasing importance of food and women to the trade.' Cigarette sales have dropped 6 per cent since 1 July last year with smokers buying 2 billion fewer cigarettes between 1 July 2007 and April 2008.

[Georgina]

Not being funny but id rather see a few pubs close than some innocent people get illnesses from breathing in smoke they didnt want to.

Its a shame they they have lost business of course but i do remember a time that i was in the minority of non smokers in my social group and when the others used to go off the the other room to smoke they would be in there alot longer than when they have to go outside now, so now i have more time with my friends and no smoke to irriate me, win win in my oppinion.

And Yep! The UK have banned smoking in any public indoor place, weather it be pubs resturants and all work places.

[unigirl]

Not being funny but id rather see a few pubs close than some innocent people get illnesses from breathing in smoke they didnt want to.

Its a shame they they have lost business of course but i do remember a time that i was in the minority of non smokers in my social group and when the others used to go off the the other room to smoke they would be in there alot longer than when they have to go outside now, so now i have more time with my friends and no smoke to irriate me, win win in my oppinion.

And Yep! The UK have banned smoking in any public indoor place, weather it be pubs resturants and all work places.

Same is going on here in germany and I really like it too. I know there are pros and cons and I understand that smoker are not very happy bout that but for me it's great. Don't like to be smoked^^

[Bryan]

I just don't see how it's possible for the ban itself to be a main reason for businesses to fall through. We've had the ban in place in America for a while. Not only is there no smoking in public places, you cannot be within 15 feet of an open door with a lit cigarette (this I know only to be true in Arizona, not sure about other state laws). I mean certainly its an inconvenience to go out in the cold (as I see one of the articles Lee mentioned) but it's hardly a reason to stop going to the pub altogether. The few public places we do have that allow smoking inside (certain Hookah bars, airports) are so clogged with smoke that it's not even pleasurable to go inside to smoke. The 'smokey boxes of death' they have in airports currently are absolutely horrible, whether you're a smoker or not, and certainly keep me from going inside.

[unigirl]

I just don't see how it's possible for the ban itself to be a main reason for businesses to fall through. We've had the ban in place in America for a while. Not only is there no smoking in public places, you cannot be within 15 feet of an open door with a lit cigarette (this I know only to be true in Arizona, not sure about other state laws). I mean certainly its an inconvenience to go out in the cold (as I see one of the articles Lee mentioned) but it's hardly a reason to stop going to the pub altogether. The few public places we do have that allow smoking inside (certain Hookah bars, airports) are so clogged with smoke that it's not even pleasurable to go inside to smoke. The 'smokey boxes of death' they have in airports currently are absolutely horrible, whether you're a smoker or not, and certainly keep me from going inside.

Guess this is some kind of reactance. Most people feel restricted in their freedom what triggers reactance.

[Eskimo]

Anyone in the UK that smokes and thinks the ban should be lifted is an ignorant asshole.....and if you don't smoke but think the ban should be removed then you are just a giant asshole.

I don't want to breathe in that shit. If I did then I would smoke.

I don't want to breathe in your car's exhaust but I do it any way and I don't fucking complain or tell you where you can and can't drive. What gives you the right to dictate my actions because it makes you marginally uncomfortable?

I don't think the government should step in on a personal choice like this.

+1

Not being funny but id rather see a few pubs close than some innocent people get illnesses from breathing in smoke they didnt want to.

Its a shame they they have lost business of course but i do remember a time that i was in the minority of non smokers in my social group and when the others used to go off the the other room to smoke they would be in there alot longer than when they have to go outside now, so now i have more time with my friends and no smoke to irriate me, win win in my oppinion.

And Yep! The UK have banned smoking in any public indoor place, weather it be pubs resturants and all work places.

What illnesses? Can anyone find a conclusive study on cigarette smoking's adverse health risks other than a hacking caugh? Even the study the Surgeon General uses to justify the warnings performed by the FDA found ridiculously low figures: it wasn't until inconvenienced, ignorant pricks decided to spin it that it was cited. Take those rediculously low figures, and tell me how many people are really effected by second hand smoke. Virtually none, that's how many. But people think their clothes stinking is justification enough. Compare those numbers to the rates of skin cancers because the same inconvenienced assholes wanted to spray their CFCs, or the number of cancers caused by PFOAs because the same inconvenienced assholes are too lazy to clean their damn pots and pans. How about cancers caused by the heavy metals used by dentists? The list goes on and on. So many products designed for consumer convenience fuck the earth and the human population and consumers use smoking as a scapegoat because they don't like the smell.