Click on images
Pete Robinson: Unhappy 2nd birthday for the smoking ban
30 June, 2009
Here we are, two years down the line from the imposition of the pub smoking ban. So what's changed in those 'groundbreaking' 24 months?
Here we are, two years down the line from the imposition of the pub smoking ban. So what's changed in those 'groundbreaking' 24 months?
In some ways not much at all. In the run up to the July 1st 2007 the Trade had two things in abundance. Customers and opinions.
Opinions did, of course, vary - and mine was just one. I've always been an optimist and a positive thinker, it's what I am.
But while I can glimpse light at the end of the tunnel once the ban is amended, as I see it the industry's glass has most definitely remained half empty.
Hence my views have been heavily panned by many for their alleged negativity. I've been accused of being a dinosaur who refuses to 'evolve'. My accurate forecasts of turnover erosion and pub closure numbers dismissed as seditious scaremongering. Two years ago they could get away with it but as time passes it's getting harder to deny that, modest as I am, I was right all along.
Two years ago the most popular industry opinion was that of the 'New Opportunity'. We must evolve to cope with the huge influx of healthier customers who were about to swamp our new, cleaner pubs throughout the land. All the statistics said so.
"But what about the smokers?"
What about 'em? Let's face it, we're not really going to need them anymore once the rush starts. Anyway most of 'em are gonna give up after the ban so we're doing them a favour. The rest will 'visit pubs more often', the opinion polls all say that. And it ain't as if they can't stand a bit of rain now and again, is it?
The advice was to steam-clean, fumigate and redecorate throughout. At all costs you must completely eradicate any evidence that society's scum had ever been there. The 'new breed' of customer wouldn't like that.
And now, two years on, we've already lost around 5% of our total pub stock with a further 53+ pubs going to the wall each week.
Which industry opinion now holds sway?
Amazingly it's pretty much the same one!
The industry naively took a leap of faith into the abyss, like lemmings jumping from a cliff. It's now in freefall but remains in total denial of the catastrophe occurring all around us - because we haven't hit the bottom yet.
There are several reasons for this. The men-in-suits at the top aren't used to being wrong. They're still convinced they can turn things around given enough time. The race isn't over so it's too soon to say we've backed the wrong horse.
If these people could pull their heads out of the sand long enough to look around they'd see the 'horse' is a donkey with one eye, three legs and it's missing a pair of testes.
Of course it's so much easier to blame the recession, supermarkets, increased overheads, social change, or even the customers themselves. Regardless of the admirable way our pubs have successfully weathered these challenges many times in recent decades.
Anything rather than admit to the fact that the smoke-free pub experiment has been an abject failure from the very start. Just as it was in Ireland, just as it was in Scotland.
At what point will they accept they've made a grave error and retrace their steps?
"C'mon Pete! There are loads of successful pubs around. Some have flourished since the ban."
Certainly there have been some successes, partly due to the north/south divide that's protected London from the full impact of the ban - for now at least.
Other publicans with busy pubs in enviable locations have benefitted from the closure of local competition. Terrified an amendment to the ban might drive their customers into neighbouring establishments these 'I'm alright Jack' landlords are amongst the most ardent and vocal pro-banners.
The rest of those at the 'sharp end' of the trade are still split.
Some publicans simply like the smoking ban. They've been won over by the health arguments and believe it's only a matter of time before the 'new breed' turn up. Nothing wrong with that. It's every publican's right to take his business non-smoking if he wishes.
But NOT to insist it must be imposed universally.
Then there's the complacent landlord who supports the ban for no other reason than it's the law. okay, trade has been hit but he's sure he can survive until things recover. You can't turn the clock back so we should all stop moaning and just 'get on with it'.
Others cling to the ban out of fear. The consequences if the 'new breed' never arrive are unthinkable. Brains mightier than theirs must have given this a lot of consideration. So they cling to the vain hope the men-in-suits were right, that ASH had been truthful, that CAMRA's laughable surveys were correct. Not much longer now, then it will all have been worth it.
However the majority of publicans, I believe over two-thirds and rising, are against the blanket ban in it's present form. No doubt some of these supported it two years ago but the evidence of their own eyes and cash registers has caused them to think again.
The rest of the 'no-banners' were against it from the beginning.
They had sufficient common sense to see it would be unpopular and harmful to their businesses.
Remember to add into this equation the views of some 5000 ex-publicans who's pubs have been sacrificed to the smoking ban.
Bankrupt, homeless, their dreams lying in tatters. Without exception they always condemn the ban as the principle reason for their sad demise.
When the hospitality trade is compelled by the State to become inhospitable to HALF of it's formerly loyal customers then it shouldn't take a genius to understand that, sooner or later, they are gonna point ten toes towards the door.
"But what about the positive aspects of the ban? 40,000 lives saved over the next 10 years! You can't argue with that, can you?"
Erm... well actually yes you can. The first thing to note is that this imaginary estimate, for that's all this figure is, comes from the provisional wing of Cancer Research UK. Yes, the ones who fund ASH using taxpayer's cash lavished so scandalously it makes MP's expenses look like fiddling the tea kitty.
Now it would take too long here to explain how these statistics are contrived but try Googling 'Trojan Numbers' to get an idea.
Suffice to say those who have done the maths calculate the '40,000 lives' myth is based on the verbal say-so of just 21 individuals.
In fact smoking rates have soared in Ireland and Scotland since their respective bans, especially amongst the young. Pretty ironic innit?
"What about the 80-odd percent of the public who support the smoking ban? Even 47% of smokers support it!"
No they don't. It's just another bogus statistic. Some time before the ban an item on local TV announced an online smoking survey was about to close at midnight. I went directly to the Midlands-area site and filled out the questionnaire.
The questions were cleverly worded in such a way it was almost impossible NOT to support the ban. For example, "Do you believe smokers should be allowed to endanger the health of those around them?"
What's more all of the regional surveys were conducted by a network of proactive anti-smoking groups. They were deliberately underpublicised to avoid any risk of being truly representative.
In short they were conducted with all the transparency and fairness of an Iranian election.
The overwhelming majority of non-smokers are fair and tolerant individuals to whom SHS is simply not an issue. They all have smoking friends and realise smokers are not the evil, selfish baby killers the health fascists would have you believe.
Those people who never used pubs before the ban don't give a rats ass what changes you've made. Pubs still hold no attraction for them whatsoever and never will. So if you're banking on the 'New Breed' you'll be waiting a helluva long time.
Meantime one more unforseen consequence of the ban is that your existing non-smoking pub goers are missing the smokers they once happily socialised with. They try to express this emotion in ever increasing numbers while the industry turns a deaf ear.
We must stop blaming the customers for deserting our pubs and start listening to their concerns - then ACT upon them. Ignore the drinking classes at your peril.
Today the State has replaced the traditional pub landlord, and we've left the door open for swathes of ever more intrusive regulation. Compulsory CCTV cameras, authority approved seating plans, state-regulated drink volumes, orderly queuing systems, plastic glasses, special licences to play the spoons or visit the lavatory.
People want their 'old' pubs back, warts an' all. If they'd wanted health clubs they'd have joined a gymnasium. They want proper landlords, not social workers. They want good old-fashioned boozers where State scrutiny stops at the door.
The defeatists within the trade insist pubs must 'evolve', we can't turn the clock back.
Pray they are wrong.
Readers' comments
It appears that URLs may not be allowed here, but if you put the following phrase IN QUOTES into google and do a search you will find a page with the full argument about evaporating alcohol and "passive drinking" laid out about halfway down: "over glasses of vegetable juice or soda pop" Most of the page is in French, but the argument itself, in English, is taken directly from the British Medical Journal's Rapid Responses section. Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
You can post URLs on here, but your will need to include the correct HTML coding to make them clickable. Otherwise, people can just cut and paste the URL into their browser. URLs posted which are deemed to be off-topic, advertising products, offensive or just plain boring, will not be approved. Roland Web content manager
STEVE you and many posters have stated on numerous occasions that the ban is law no gov will change it ,the same argument was used against the hunting lobby ,the point i was making if they can change that law for a few thousand hunters ,then they will have to take note of the millions who want the choice to have smoking or non smoking in pubs, 3 million smoking and i might add, quite a few non smoking voters will come in very handy come election time, the battle was lost, but the war is still game on,
Dave R, The notion that abolishing all smoking pubs will saves lives is pure speculation and not a provable fact. In a recent court case (McTear 2005) it could not even be established that smoking causes lung cancer in people who smoke!?! So despite teaching generations of school children that smoking causes lung cancer as a scientific fact, the elusive proof is still missing. So even, without talking about passive smoking, we are already working on a precautionary principle. I don't know about you, but I would feel more comfortable about public health interventions if they were based on proven fact and not on precaution. Especially, when those interventions result in closures of Pubs and increased public anxiety about health.
Steve W - They were both unnecessary and unpopular politically correct pieces of social engineering imposed by Nu-Labour.
SteveW. There are many articles that show that alcohol is a carcinogen. Here is one http://www.mlwmagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2042908 When alcohol evaporates into the air, the carcinogens are breathed in by all those who are present.
Pete.... I too find Steves posts a refreshing breath of air to take on posters like yourself and the "sheep" that follow you blindly, i only wish i could articulate myself in the manner he does ... if only i had not skipped so much school eh!.... Anyway its not Steves writing that has brought me back to the keyboad but its your latest article about me.. it seems you are not content in misquoting Steve and taking a few sentances out of a paragraph and using them out of context without showing the full story (a normal trick for a poor debater) but it is more the use of the word "anti" that you use when talking about me, if you care to look back at your many posts on the smoking ban to which i have commented on you will see i am far from anti smoking... but for one final time let me clear it up for you ... i would fight and shout as loud as you if they ever tried to ban smoking, what you do in your own home is entirely up to you and the other smokers, far from being an "anti" i am with you all the way but i would always always fight you to bring your smoking into a public area that causes illness and discomfort to my staff,my family and myself. I think it does the smokers argument a great diservice to hear publicans like yourself describe people as "antis" or "tolerant non smokers" and the rubbish spoken on these boards regarding your loss of "feedom to choose" this has not been removed and you are free to smoke as much now as you were pre july 2007 its just other pug goers "freedoms" have been enhanced by not having to breath in your toxic habit when socializing, this in my opinion has been long overdue. My final point and one that steve often tells you... if landlords put as much effort into running their pub in a manner that would attract customers as they do in banging on and on about how hard done they are by the smoking ban then i think their buisness would start to look up, sadly however landlords like you pete are not doing our great trade any favours at all and in my opinion it is time that the dinosaurs got out of the trade so that we can get more positive thinking and optimistic people back behind the counter.
It amazes me that the Conservative Party, the supposed party of liberty and personal freedom that Cameron is always banging on about, doesn't recognize how silly he sounds when Cameron won't categorically state that the two most spiteful freedom-restricting peices of Labour legislation, the ban on fox-hunting with dogs and the indoor smoking ban, will definetely be ammended under a conservative government. Winston Churchill must be turning over in his grave.
Frederik: "The bad news is that it may lead to public health intrusions into peoples sex lives." Damn! I'm married. With kids. I have NO sex life for them to intrude on! ;-)
"If he repeals hunting-with-dogs then he'll have to repeal the smoking ban"? I'm struggling to see the possible link with those two things?
Steve, It is emerging that more and more mouth/throat cancers are caused by infections (eg HPV) and a very recent study (this year) shows that sexual behaviour and the number of infected partners (>=10) is a 20 fold risk of oral HPV infection , smoking a mere 3 fold risk of oral infection and you will be glad to hear that drinking gives little or no extra risk of infection (in this study at least). Although, it's worth pointing out that these infections are common and very, rarely lead to mouth/throat cancers, same as smoking. The good news about this is that it's impossible to make the argument that these infections can be "caught" by breathing smoke/booze/fumes in a pub. But it's early days yet. The bad news is that it may lead to public health intrusions into peoples sex lives.
In the news today[wed ] Mr Cameron,has told his supporters he will definitely repeal the hunting with dogs act,if he can do that then the trade off will have to be repeal of the smoke ban in pubs ,
Chas - that's a pretty weak argument for the ills of alcohol don't you think? Firstly, I don't believe there's any evidence of alcohol being a carcinogen in itself - as far as I'm aware, there has been some links to cancer (of the mouth, aesophogus, etc) and alcohol, but it is not known if this is a direct consequence of alcohol or something else. It is also, most interestingly, much more pronounced in smokers! There is NO evidence that evaporated alcohol poses any threat whatsoever, and, anyway, the amounts we're talking about would mean that you'd need probably 100 shot glasses left out overnight to create the same 'pollution' as one even one small cigarette! Yes, booze smells and (heavy) drinkers smell, but that smell doesn't rub off onto others - you don't stink of booze at the end of a night because you've been stood next to a drinker, you only stinck of booze if you've been consuming it yourself!
Dave R - In fact I have a great deal of respect for our Steve. He takes on all comers like Jackie Chan. He never insists he's right just because 'he' says so. Generally Steve will passionately debate the points and fashions a reasoned argument, even if he is misguided IMHO. But at least he knows what he's talking about from his blood, sweat n' tears spent in the business. OTOH you antis always fall back on those old, hackneyed ASH statistics as if they'd been carried from Mount Sinai on stone tablets. Be warned the worm is turning. You've got around a year at best to work your venom before we start digging out the rotten flesh.
SteveW. You said yourself that alcohol does evaporate into the air. So if a measure of alcohol contain over 2,000 the times carcinogens of a cigarettes, then everybody in a pub would be exposed to all those carcinogens. Also doesn't booze smell and don't drinkers smell of booze. Have you seen the latest story, by Drinkaware, with their advocating alcohol restrictions? I am against prohibition, but there are people out there who want to prohibit much of what we enjoy.
Pete - your twisting of my (and other's) comments is becoming tiresome. It is far too easy to take anybody's comments out of context and use them against them; but I'm afraid it just smacks of someone with no real arguments. If you say that all pubs are suffering because of the ban then of course I'll present my own example of a pub that's doing well (and others), because it is. If you say that I'm "raking it in" on the back of other licensee's struggling then of course I'll deny that and say that I'm doing well but I'm not making a fortune, as you try and suggest simply to alianate me to other posters. That doesn't make me contradictory, it's simply an inevitable fact of trying to hold a sensible counter-argument to someone such as yourself who darts all over the place but doesn't really have much to say once the headline-grabbing comments are stripped away...
Chas - my "stupid comparison" was deliberately stupid, as I was pointing out how daft it is to try and compare smokers and drinkers in any argument. You still miss my point totally. The things you state are, of course, correct but the MASSIVE DIFFERENCE is that drink is only bad for other people when it's consumed by a bad person; the sort of person who probably does those things when he's sober as well, so drink is not the ultimate cause, it's simply a contributory factor. Whereas cigarettes are bad for other people regardless of whether they're being smoked by Jack the Ripper or Mother Theresa! The cigarette/smoking ITSELF is the cause (and I'm talking about all the bad effects, not just SHS, which you'll no doubt deny is a problem at all)...
Ken. I was just giving a reply to SteveW's stupid comparison. As you say, it does happen. I don't want to see further restrictions for sensible drinkers, but some do.
Chas your premis is totally flawed regarding consumption of alcohol. Only a very tiny minority of people who drink a lot go on to assault anyone or act in an unacceptable manner.and an even tinier number even contemplate pushing their glass into anyones face. Taken the much greater number of people who consume alcohol as opposed to people who smoke as a proportion of the population then comparisons between the two are totally irrelevant. Ken Nason
Steve W - Sorry m8, you're contradicting yourself again. You've always harped on about how successful your pub is to present evidence that the smoking ban isn't a factor. Now you reckon you're just about scraping a living. If that's true then I'd suggest with all the work you've put in you deserve to be making a thumping great profit. Perhaps without the smoking ban you really would be "reaping the benefits" of your labours. However I cannot agree that all those pubs adversely affected by the ban should be closed down. Better if some sort of accommodation could be reached.
SteveW. A person who smokes too much does not go out and assault others, whereas a person who drinks too much does.. A person who smokes a lot may well throw cigarettes on the ground, whereas a person who drinks too much will put his glass in somebody else's face. Get your head out of the sand. Anti-alcohol groups will argue that alcohol (5th) is a more dangerous drug tha tobacco(9th) and if such bans are levied on tobacco, it should be levied on alcohol.
Pete - unbelievable - in order to answer my point about your continual mis-quoting of me, you mis-quote me again!! Yes, I said the words, "It's one of the reasons I bought a pub in the UK JUST AFTER the smoking ban came into force, because I done a lot of research and now I'm reaping the benefits"- BUT you've taken them out of context again for your own purposes. I was not bragging about making a fortune, as anyone who reads that whole post will see, I was making the point that I'd bought my pub AFTER the ban and I was still making a living. It was, inevitably, in answer to your usual negativity about all pubs sinking. I've never bragged on here about making a fortune, I've only ever said that it's still possible (and usually relatively easy) for any business-minded person to make a good living from a pub. If there are some pubs where it is now impossible to make a living then they should be closed and changed to another purpose. Sad, but I'm afraid inevitable, in the same way that printers now have a much reduced market since everyone got their own home-pc, or in the same way that internet cafe's will shrink away to nothing now that most of the population have either broadband or mobile phones with more computing power than a 1970s spaceship!
Work around - I think you'll find that's also illegal...
Dave R - thanks, couldn't have put it better myself!
Chas - but that's your problem with any comparison between smokers and drinkers (which is where Fredrik's arguments always fall down); last time I checked I don't remember seeing any drinker (intentionally) spilling his pint on somebody beside him, or spitting his drink across the room, or throwing his empty pint glass on the floor when he was finished. That's exactly what most smokers do but you've done it for so long that you fail to see anything wrong with your behaviour. Check out the pavement outside my pub after we close on any evening - the amount of discarded cigarette ends is a disgrace, especially given that there's a public bin and my own cigarette bin handy for them (and this is only smokers who use the front, there's a nice courtyard at the back for the majprity of them)!
Simon - "hilarity-inducing self-righteous illogical waffle" is precisely what most of the smoking supporters write, induced by nothing more than their pathetic addiction to cigarettes...
As a former publican, I also see the demise of the Briish pub as a crying shame. The smoking ban has, in my opinion, led in part to the demise of my business, other factors were involved. (Bills, particularly!!) From the outset, this ban was only the "thin edge of the wedge" with the full compliance of all businesses, next came the ridiculous restrictions imposed on the smoking shelters and areas that followed. As many publicans have pointed out, they have spent thousands on these "solutions" and some have hence been "in contravention of.." etc., The fact is, the councillors who are employed to implement and uphold these laws then seek more and more ridiculous "standards" which laughably now include it seems, a ban on smoking in pub gardens!! It was laughable when our shelter was visited, and tape measures pulled out of pockets etc. MONTY PYTHON COULDN'T HAVE WRITTEN IT!! Wake up Britain, before you are being told which side of the street to walk down, how high your heels are etc. In my opinion, this research which brought about this ban stems from the suing culture, and actually is more about the perceived threat from pub staff suing the industry for damages for any possible health threat.(secondary smoke etc.) I happen to know first hand, that residential homes, for example, now have the same ban, and was appalled to learn of one elderly and disabled lady being wheeled out into the rain to enjoy one of her few pleasures!! The same goes for pubs! All my customers went out at light up time, into the murkiness, including non smokers, quote "..If I don't go out too, I have no-one to talk to"! -and do the government really want swathes of sprightly 99 year olds in 20 or so years impacting on an already overstretched economy? The poor pensioners we currently have are often seen as burdensome, and the government often 'worries' about how much is left in the pension pot. In my opinion, publicans money would have been saved, taxpayers money saved (all those smoking police!!) if a common sense approach had been used, ie, allocating smoking rooms/areas, and making adjustments to these to ensure that smoke didn't travel (extractors, self closing doors, simple!!) You should see some of the relaxed attitudes on the continent, many of our European cousins have had this ban in place for much longer than Britain, and seek to accomodate smokers and non-smokers alike, Pop over to Belgium if you get the chance! What has happened in the UK is as much to do with our governments' interpretation of the DIRECTIVE from Brussels. Several Euro cousins simply rejected it out of hand. Perhaps its the weather, or the recession, but have we really become spineless, humourless creatures, who can only interprete to the letter any law thats plonked under our noses!! I HOPE NOT! Thats not British!!
Steve W - "You're also mis-quoting me, because I have never said I've "cleaned up finacially because of the ban" --- Oh come on Steve! You brag about it all the time. Here's just ONE recent example: "It's one of the reasons I bought a pub in the UK JUST AFTER the smoking ban came into force, because I done a lot of research and now I'm reaping the benefits" --- So are you 'reaping the benefits' or not? Make your mind up.
Sell your pub. Buy an off-license with living accommodation attached. Furnish the living area with cheap sofas and tables. Sell cigarettes, alcohol and snacks out of the off-license. Make friends with regular customers and stay in touch with friends you served at the pub. After they make a purchase from the off-license invite your friends into the living area where they can drink, smoke and socialise with your other friends. Install Sky in your living area, add a pool table, playstation 3, fridges to keep their beer cool etc. Just don't employ anyone in the living area..
Hi Steve W I have been following your brave fight to put the case forward regarding the smoking ban and Petes crusade to blame all the pub ills on it, i do have sypathy with you in your fight as you are now finding out how Pete likes to misquote your words and his merry band follow him and jump to his tune and try to discredit you.. I think your views are well thought out and forward looking, i have said many times before in Petes blogs that while the smoking ban has had a part to play in the demise of the licence trade it is only one part of many,i have always maintained that the price of beer and such has had a far bigger effect on the pub trade than ever the smoking ban has, i mean how can you compare paying over £3 for a pint when the supermarkets are selling 6 pints for that sort of price its a no brainer!.. people want the pub to be something different for the extra money they pay for a pint and if all they are getting is some grumpy old landlord moaning about how the smoking ban is behind all his ills then i am pretty sure his custom will soon die... I think landlords like Pete are a throwback to an age that is long gone, those days went along with drink driving and the working man popping in for a pint on his way home for supper, in the main article Pete says he has been called a dinosaur (that too was by me in a previous blog) and that i feel is just the word that sums him and other landlords that hark back to a past that is long gone. Thankfully we have some forward looking pub landlords who care deeply about the trade that has served them so well and his blogs on here are forward looking, funny and interesting (yes you Chris Mclean) and is much more in tune with what his punters want that the backward looking dinosaur... So Steve keep fighting your corner it is enlightning and refreshing for someone as articulate as you to stand up for all the forward looking publicans that have long stopped posting on here due to the attacks and repetitive same topic that pete continually posts ... as i have said before in my other posts ... the smoking ban is here to stay move with the times or let someone with a more forward looking outlook take over ...
SteveW. Wait until the anti-alcohol groups get more restrictions on alcohol. Will you say well it's the drinkers' own fault for not being more considerate?
Steve W: I'm sure i speak for most people here when I tell you you never "bore" us with your posts. Reading hilarity-inducing self-righteous illogical waffle is a fine way to begin the day. So please, do keep posting.
Simon - RE: Your "load of money" comment, I'd suggest you stop believing everything Pete writes. Re: Your other questions, please take some time, if you're truly interested, to read the history of this thread and other smoking threads, where I've answered similar questions time and again, so don't really want to bore everyone again on here!
Chas - as I said in my recent reply to Pete - I argue against all of the pro-smoking-choice comments because they are from people who usually vastly overplay the bad state of our industry and use the ban as the sole cause of our problems. Coupled to that, I'm a none-smoker who has absolutely no problem with people smoking but who dares to suggest that maybe smokers should have been a little more considerate in where they smoked and then maybe a ban would never have been necessary. There are lots of bad habits but smoking is one of the few (if not the only one) that has such a big affect on other people who may not want to join in with it. Regarding your point about my lunchtime posts - suffice to say I run a busy pub but I organise my time, and my staff, quite well. It's the best time to do my paperwork and other desk work but don't let it worry you too much :o)
Pete - but therein lies your biggest mistake - the ban has nothing to do with the pub trade in itself and, in reality, the vast majority of the country couldn't give a fig what happens to our trade one way or the other, which is why I believe an attempt to have it overturned is futile, hence why I think you should be putting your vast energies into something else. You're also mis-quoting me, because I have never said I've "cleaned up finacially because of the ban"? You're simply doing what you do best, and that is to post some scurrilous line that, on the face of it, looks to be true, which then affects other poster's perceptions. Position me as some selfish, puritan, 'all-right-Jack' anti-smoker and then lots of others will jump in and attack me too, as they have. Most people posting on here can barely be bothered to read the last post fully, or the original story, let alone check through to the beginning of some threads (as is apparent in many repeated comments and/or incorrect assumptions), which is obviously your main 'weapon' when posting such comments. I've always maintained that the ban has had a negative affect; my main position has always been to argue that it's not the ONLY affect, by a long way. The only reason I argue so strongly against people such as yourself is precisely because you see it as the only issue. I also haven't creamed in profits since the ban; I've spent a lot of money on improvements, a lot of which is to accomodate smokers and/or minimise the affects of the ban and, at best, I'm cash-neutral pre and post ban. On a business level only, I'm neither for or against the ban, but on a personal level I see it as a huge benefit for everyone, hence why I've accepted it, moved on and got on with trying to attract customers in other ways. Regarding your comment on your most recent post - it is unfortunately a sad fact that there ARE a lot of licensees who can't think for themselves now that they must treat their pubs as businesses. That is not me positioning myself as some sort of guru or having a snobby or elitist position (I still have a lot to learn), it is simply a well-known but little accepted fact within our industry. We're all too scared to admit it, because anyone who does is shouted down as arrogant, but until we accept such basic facts within our industry we're always going to have a major problem everytime a major change in our market comes into play, which it surely will again!
"I for one don't place the health of pubs higher than the health of people." - James. James, Fine. Why not abolish all pubs in order to stop the public/staff from taking risks with their health in pubs? Eliminate all the risk. Should save a few hospital admissions every year. Or why don't you let customers/staff decide for them selves whether smoking/smokefree pubs are healthy for them or not?
Steve W - "I'm scared of what might happen to a lot of other licensees should your naive amendments come into force" -- What you are saying here is licensees are not capable of using their own judgment to make their own decisions. So you want the Nanny State to control their businesses to save licensees from their own ignorance. But have you considered the possibility that YOUR opinion might be the ignorant one? You certainly live in ignorance of the serious damage people like you have done to the trade.
Steve W: congratulations you have a sucessful non-smoking pub. You're making load a money and you're happy. good for you. Now kindly explain in detail why you, with a sucessful non-smoking pub, would object to a fellow publican being allowed a smoking pub? Are you against freedom of choice? market competition? you believe the government knows best? what is your exact objection to allowing publicans, not government, to decide how they run their businesses?
i am sorry yes i am smoker or was a smoker i have been a landlady for about 10 yrs and the trade is dying from all this why don,t you just close all the pub and be done with it
I for one don't place the health of pubs higher than the health of people. Anything that encourages people not to smoke even a little is worth it.
If you really believe that the smoking ban will never be amended, why are you on here constantly arguing for it not to be amended. If you think that smoking is a bad habit, then isn't drinking a bad habit? You must be very busy of a lunch time, as you are constantly on here at lunch times.
Steve W - You're contradicting yourself m8. From your very first post your constant boast has been how you've cleaned up financially because of the smoking ban. In fact that's always been the main thrust of your argument, "I'm alright Jack, so any pub that closes it must be THEIR fault". Do you know how many pubs closed in the wells area during the eighteen months BEFORE the ban? 3. That's right, just 3. So the rate of closure tripled immediately after the ban and is still rising. Whatever customers all those pubs had must be going somewhere. Now I do appreciate you run an excellent pub and have developed a good business using passion and entrepreneurial skill. But the tactic of 'Last Man Standing' has also played a part, as it has with many others (especially JDW). When choice does return for publicans you should have nothing to fear if, as you say, the smoking ban is irrelevant to pub turnover.
And to follow with another common accusation thrown at me (and others) - Everyone seems to think I hold my views because I'm somehow scared of what might happen to me? But I'm not, I'm scared of what might happen to a lot of other licensees should your naive amendments come into force; the very licensees who are already struggling with a lot of other issues. I don't believe the ban will ever be overturned, so I'm concerned at a lot of wasted creative energy that could be used in many other ways but, even if some amendments did eventually come in, do you really believe it would just be a simple case of "there you go publicans, decide whether you want to be a smoking pub and reap the benefits"? IT WON'T!! There will be so much new legislation surrounding any relaxation of the ban that it would almost negate any potential benefits. There'd be much tighter employment legislation, health&safety legislation, air quality, legislation, licensing restrictions, etc. etc. You all need to seriously consider what you're asking for. It's similar to the other 'big issue' discussed on these threads at the moment (the tie); an apparently innocent campaign for the benefit of "everyone" that actually only onvolves a minority of the industry and has a high risk of resulting in something even worse!
Why does eveyone that doesn't agree with my view think I'm self-serving? You don't even know me so don't even begin to assume my personality. If I were truly self-serving then I'd log-off here for good and I'd never talk to another industry person, I'd just get on with making money and stuff everyone else - but I don't. The reason I hold my views is because I'm passionate about my industry and I care for it deeply. I'm one of the licensees who makes a good living from my pub and no matter what happens to the ban, I'll adapt my business to prosper, as I always have, so my motivation is not self-centred. UNLIKE many of the smokers who are campaigning for change, who are simply not honest with themselves or with others; the primary reason the ban upsets you so much has little to do with concern for your fellow licensees, or your civil liberties, or the risk of creeping legislation in the future - it is simply because you're a smoker and you can no longer enjoy a pint and a fag at the same time, which pis*es you off! It really is an incredulous situation that a bad habit can spark so much debate.
Steve your either with us or against us. I'm curious with your self serving attitude one would think politics may be your calling not honest work.
Well written Mr. Robinson. And similar debates are going on in the States. Many realise the lies and disinformation that has been financed by our Tobacco settlements (billions of dollars). Those who promote smoking bans act on a basis of selective policy led evidence. Evidence is provided that supports a specific policy already decided, (SHS is deadly). The usual scientific approach is objective evidence led policy. This is when objective evidence is evaluated to develop a policy. (we have worse problems then smelling like tobbaco smoke) Smoking ban supporters have undermined societies faith in science and the Medical Industry. While the Medical Industry guts our lives and industries with escallateing costs for simple health care. We recently had a local CEO of a large Health Care Organization that tried to take a 1.6 BILLION dollar, one year bonus. He was exposed by the media and the board of directors for the Health Group let him walk with $900 million. Poor Mr. Glynn lost $600 million.(one year bonus) The Medical and Insurance Industries are the equivalent to the Military/Industrial complex of the 60's, they're scary and they see you and I as billing hours not human beings. When a politican learns to be self serving in his elected position, Democracy disappears.
Brilliant article and 100% accurate, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I don't think the ban will be overturned and I seriously doubt that most landlords will lift a finger to argue against the law. The majority of landlords I speak to are terrified of even speaking out against the ban. I wonder if they'll stay silent when they close their doors for the last time.
Jon - I stated many times on here the reasons why I think an amendment would be a bad idea (for all of us, not just for me) so I won't repeat myself again. Check the old threads if you're really that interested. Your last point is actually quite salient - I believe the number of smokers who have avoided pubs totally since the ban (such as yourself) to be relatively small; they were probably people who were drifting away from using pubs anyway and this was just the final reason to make the break. It just frustrates me how a few militant smokers position themselves as the voice of all smokers or the voice of all pub-goers when most of the industry is blatantly still doing okay and/or has other current issues to deal with. By all means start a campaign to amend the ban, if that's what you believe in, but don't use the rest of us as your reason for doing so...
Pete - once again, even more ridiculously wide assumptions and causality mistakes! Firstly, my 'position' was chosen very carefully, as anyone with half a brain can easily do, so there's no 'luck' involved with that (I don't remember ever hearing about somebody buying a pub which then transported itself to a different area while they were asleep)! My other costs and complications of doing business reflect this good position so, relatively, we're all operating at pretty much the same level. The affluence of the area can actually be a negative, as we have a very small pool of potential pub customers from the total town's population (around 4% at my best guestimate). Tourist numbers to the area are also way down on the last few years but I don't recall any studies saying that tourists have avoided the UK because of the smoking ban (no doubt you'll have some somewhere :o). But all that aside, it doesn't really matter what town you're in or what type of pub you have - what matters is the RELATIVE DIFFERENCE in your trading figures pre and post ban. Secondly, you may be right about the pub closures in this constituency but, again, you make the almost childish connection of - "Pubs closed - there's a smoking ban - ergo they closed because of the smoking ban"! Pubs have been closing around here for years now (as they have everywhere) especially the more remote houses, and it has little to do with the ban. Thirdly - not a single customer from any of the pubs that have closed in this area would frequent my pub anyway, it's a large constituency (No pubs in, or close to, town have closed). Even if the pub next door to me closed I'd be lucky to get a handful of their customers at any sort of frequency to have an affect; if a pub is closing due to lack of business then, by definition, they've probably already lost their customers - to make sweeping claims like this just shows your lack of business acumen (or maybe it shows your skill at coming up with contentious statements that, on the face of it, look correct)? Fourthly - this label of the "I'm alright Jack" landlord which you throw at me is just a cheap jibe from somebody who can't win his argument. I don't agree with your views but I can accept you're probably a nice guy who's just passionate about what he believes in. I care passionately about my trade and I believe I'm one of the few in my town who does think about the other pubs - I'd hate to lose a competitor, not just because it would mean a colleague is struggling but because it would be bad for all of us. Ironically, it's people such as you who may not really "give a fig" for the trade, because you pursue your personal vendatta as if it's a cause for everyone and I genuinely believe that if you got what you wanted (IE. some sort of smoking room 'choice' for pubs) it would do more harm than good to the trade. It's precisely because I'm not a smoker and I'm not adversly affected by the ban (for whatever reasons) that I can look at the subject with objectivity and try to take a balanced view on what's best for us all, not just what's best for some guy who can't be ars*d to pop into a (probably refurbished, sheltered and heated) pub garden when he wants a fag!
Jon, it should be perfectly obvious why Steve W would object to other pubs having facilities for people to smoke indoors when he doesn't: All those smokers who he is so pleased haven't deserted him would most likely vanish without a trace, probably taking their non-smoking friends with them. I know that I would.
Nigel - what IS arrogant, is the positioning of your argument in a way that suggests that you're fighting for everyone and have the support of everyone, which is how most of the anti-ban whiners position themselves. Pro-ban people are in a MINORITY. Smokers are in a MINORITY. Failing pubs, whilst very sad in themselves, are in a vast MINORITY, and if you actually look at those that have failed ONLY because of the smoking ban then the numbers are so small in relation to the total UK pub stock as to be negligible. If pointing out these facts comes across as arrogant then I'm sorry, but this constant cry of the smoking ban being the cause of all ills is pathetic.
Tim - a sensible voice amongst the hoards of the mis-guided, well done!
tim - But as I mentioned pubs have weathered previous recessions well, redundant drinkers being driven into pubs to drown their sorrows amongst friendly faces. There were no significant pub closures during the recessions of the 80's and 90's. Take any set of trade figures for the last 3 years - beer/alcohol sales, share prices, pub closures - plot them on a graph and you can draw a red line through July 2007 as the 'tipping point' where the graph falls off a cliff. Here is an example - http://tinyurl.com/l7mjgl - Now bear in mind we didn't enter recession until late 2008, yet the trade's real financial woes all stem from mid-2007. Mere coincidence? I think not.
Steve W is quite likely an astute business man and a competent landlord, but Steve, why are you concerned about possibly amending the ban if it won't affect your business?. There were actually a gowing number of non-smoking pubs before the ban and yours might have eventually gone non-smoking anyway. If other pubs want to allow smoking, then let them. I'm surprised you have not lost one smoking customer. I haven't been in a pub since the ban and I can't be the only one. I'm over 50 so perhaps I am really in a very small minority in this respect.
Steve W - With respect you do occupy an enviable high street position in a prosperous area benefitting from a lively tourist income. I note that in your Wells constituency area you lost NINE pubs in the first 18 months following the smoking ban, probably 12-15 by now, which boosts your own trade at the expense of bankrupt publicans. You are the epitome of the pro-ban "I'm alright Jack" landlord I mentioned. If you truly believe the bilge you say then you'd have no reason to object to indoor smoking rooms because it wouldn't affect your business. Or could it be you don't give a flying fig about the rest of the Trade, just so long as you're doing okay?
Steve W please give me the name of your pub so that I can avoid it and its arrogant landlord
as a former pub landlord, and now customer, i am afraid that your argument with regards to pubs closing holds little weight. every industry is struggling and there is no proof that the struggles in the pub industry has anything to do with the smoking ban. there is simply a shortage of money in the uk at the moment. the majority of my friends smoke and we are all regular pub drinkers - probably 5 nights a week at least. i am yet to hear the excuse that they can't smoke inside as a reason for not coming to the pub on any evening. the simple reason for not going as often as before is a lack of money. i am not saying that it is 100% certain that the smoking ban is not to blame for the closure of pubs, but i am saying that your very one sided argument that it is responsible for so many closures is totally without foundation. your case would be a lot stronger if we weren't in the midst of a recession.
Thank you for this, Pete. Have you seen the latest EU pronouncement, banning smoking from all outdoor venues as well? This would include any structure of either a roof or one or more walls and beer gardens. They won't stop.
Brilliant article Pete. You have a year to get the ear of the politicians before the review. Less before the next election. You can bet rivers of funds will be flowing from pharma companies into propaganda to fight common sense and choice. It would be nice if a trade body would come out to fight for the pub trade on this issue, but the pubcos are little more than property companies and CAMRA are just self-indulgent and naive. LVAs might be useful, but how much power do they have? After all, most MPs are so thick these days that they can't see a vested interest if it comes with a 3 foot badge attached.
Pete - once again a very well written piece, which obviously comes from the heart as well as the head. But, simply wrong and biased in so many ways. I'm not going to counter-argue every point you make because, quite frankly, it's getting boring (for me, you and everyone else!) so I'm just going to make some points around one current REALITY - Why is it that in my pub (and, I've absolutely no doubt, thousands of others across the UK) I've not lost a single smoking customer to the ban ... not one? I'm not talking about my business now being propped-up by new diners. I'm not talking about it being propped up by the tourist trade in my town. I'm talking about the core customers (smokers and none smokers) who visit the pub regularly? Why is that? Are smokers in my town somehow different to everywhere else in the UK? Do smokers in my town have nothing else to do? Or maybe, just maybe, it's because they have a landlord who isn't obsessed with one topic, doesn't whinge at every given opportunity about how bad times are and has actually made a lot of improvements (continuing) to accomodate his customers in every way? Maybe it's because they have a landlord who works, on average, 12 hours/day, 7 days/week (and that's a REAL work figure, not your usual licensee claim of hard work, which normally means all the time they're simply in the pub building)! I can also speak from personal experience surrounding the industry decline because I bought my pub from a landlord who had exactly the same views as you (Oh woe is me; everything is a government conspiracy; if we don't man the guns now they'll have the shirts off our backs; it's not like it used to be anymore; it's not like the good old days; it's impossible to make a living from this pub anymore; there's nothing I can do about it; you must be a fool to take on this place; etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum...). But guess what, within a month of taking over, turnover jumped from £7K/week to around £12K, and now averages around £13.5K. Another guess what - I was a regular of this pub for 5 years before I bought it and in all that time I saw a constant decline, both in this pub and in the town in general, and in the country, that had NOTHING to do with the smoking ban (all pre-July 07)? My God, how am I going to explain that without using smoking as an excuse?! Isn't it time you all admitted your real motivation, instead of quoting civil liberties and failing industries, etc. - IE. You're simply a smoker who's 'pis*ed off that he's been forced to change his habits slightly! You could then get on with your pro-smoking campaign in a focused and honest way and let the rest of us get on with making an honest living.
MandyV: I live in california and though they were the first to enact the smoking ban, i must tell you they enacted it, unlike the UK, with sensible exemptions. Firstly, outside areas can be fully covered, Secondly, bars run without bar staff, as in family owned are exempt, and still allow smoking inside. Thirdly, indian casinos, are also exempt and allow smoking inside. Fourthly, hookah bars.cigar shops also allow smoking inside. So all in all, as a Brit living in Los Angeles, I can still smoke freely, unlike in the UK.
Hear hear! At last a sensible, well-reasoned article that counters the arguements for an outright smoking ban with unassailable logic. Unfortunately logic doesnlt win arguements in britain. We much prefer stubbornly refusing to accept we were wrong, and blame supermarkets, tax etc etc. Freedom of choice like the rest of the world is the soltution. Logically. Oh dear, now I blown it...
Thank you Pete, not long before the antis get their claws in, with the beer gardens either. It happened in Canada, it will happen here if we allow it. I really cannot believe how short sighted the unhospitality trade (like your version) have been. California, where all this crap started is nearly bankrupt, (good) I boycott anything that comes from their (mainly wine). I will be enjoying some real hospitality soon on my holidays, I only spend my (smokers money) where I am welcome. I see many smokers now taking advantage of the nice summer weather, but soon the winter will be upon us and if the antis get the gardens smoke-free as well, the best of british to the trade. The prohibitionists are getting closer, they learn nothing, next will be the alchohol and the food menus. You can see the bigger picture, it is a shame some of your pals in the publican cannot.
I just hope that all the previously pro-ban publicans will learn from their experience and listen closely to your predictions before the lurking anti-alcohol movement gets fully into its stride. Everyone in the trade, whether they like the ban or not, should bear well in mind that the anti-smoking movement started with just a small handful of activists who pushed their views with almost religious fervour, using every trick in the book, and, like any group of zealots, letting nothing – absolutely nothing – stand in the way of achieving their desired goal. And look where we are now. We have a whole, multi-million pound industry sucking money out of the Exchequer, punitively restrictive legislation, a hospitality industry in tatters, social and working lives destroyed, and a whole new group of people for would-be bullies, racists, sexists and homophobes to vent their spleen at, now that all their preferred targets are (quite rightly) off-limits. The anti-alcohol movement will be no different. This time, publicans must be alert from the outset and must unite and fight together to stamp out this threat in its infancy rather than waiting, as they have with the smoking ban, until it becomes a monster whose insatiable appetites are much harder to quell. Presenting an active, united front to achieve an amendment to the smoking ban would be a good start, simply because it would move the battle lines back into old territory once again and the healthists' attention would necessarily be redirected backwards to a fight which they believed was pretty much all over bar the shouting (for it's my belief that many former anti-smokers are now just jumping ship and will simply metamorphose into the new anti-drinkers). I just hope that, in a few years' time, I won't be once again reading an article by your good self saying once more: "I told you so."
Well written, it should come down to freedom of choice.
Well said that man. How many pubs do we have to lose before the charalans and bigots are undone?
I must admit that I have in the past been very critical of the pub industry, I even recognise points I have used! I I am relieved that I can say I agree with what you are saying. Thank you for having the courage to stand up for all of your customers, The landladies name escapes me but the Cutting Edge Pub demonstrated your points beautifully quadruplinng her trade in a mere four days I am sure you would agree if every pub owner had the grit to say I can make a fourfold profit and possibly more with my traditional customers to the pubcos, and the MP's the pub crises would be eased, not over, but at least eased. I will not insult your intelligence by saying you'll get all the customers back but I think you may get most if you all act quickly enough. So yes Landlords choice is very acceptable to me and millions like me so go forth and convince thy brethren with my wholehearted support and blessings. Well said and Good luck Peter!
Best article I have read in a long long time!! I agree totally with what you say, possibly because I have 20 odd years experience of running pubs with high standards. I could write as much on the subject if I had the time but that is the problem.....No time! What we need is someone like you to work on our collective case as a spokesperson before it is too late!