Pete Robinson: Smoke signals from Ireland

Steve W - "pubs ARE for drinking and socialising but they're NOT FOR SMOKING!!!" - Pubs have welcomed smokers for nearly 500 years and thrived. They've been smoke-free for 2 years that have brought the industry to it's knees. Perhaps the reason your "pub courtyard" is regarded as a smoking area is because you place ashtrays on each and every table to encourage smokers to dwell out there in the cold. A bar without smoke is seen as "souless" because most of it's former customers are partying at home drinking Tesco's finest. Anything else I can help you with?

Alas SteveW you missed the whole point did you not? Smoking is an integral part of pubs and people. It still is and a swift history lesson will probably confirm my comments. I never said it was for smoking but should be allowed. You, yourself can be a 'new leader' and have smokefree pubs with the 'new look' however most people (and they still do) in the UK want some form of tradition. They want to enjoy themselves and that goes for tourists to the UK too. When I started back in 1982 everyone was happy. People smoked, chatted and drank (copious amounts) of alcohol. It was the same in 1992 and 2002 so what's your problem unless of course you are from ASH. Maybe you want people to just hand over cash for their new sterile conditions? Maybe, just maybe you need to consider the next step will be to restrict and even ban alcohol - I I guess you never thought of that as the aim of your type of defence? Being obviously such a bright 'spark' you should realise that. Michael

Steve W - "pubs ARE for drinking and socialising but they're NOT FOR SMOKING!!!" - Pubs have welcomed smokers for nearly 500 years and thrived. They've been smoke-free for 2 years that have brought the industry to it's knees. Perhaps the reason your "pub courtyard" is regarded as a smoking area is because you place ashtrays on each and every table to encourage smokers to dwell out there in the cold. A bar without smoke is seen as "souless" because most of it's former customers are partying at home drinking Tesco's finest. Anything else I can help you with?

Hermansen - prohibition was on alcohol, which is a far more widespread and longer-lived 'habit' than smoking, so there's little comparison. Alcohol goes to the root of civilisation's history. And your quote "alcohol and smoking goes together", is only true, of course, if you happen to do both...

"that's what's so bloody frustrating for non-smokers - pubs ARE for drinking and socialising but they're NOT FOR SMOKING!!!! " - Steve W. Ok, if it a trivial matter of perception and expectations, then allow tobacconists to serve booze and food; then all the frustrated non-smokers can go to all the pubs and all the smokers can go to the baccy shops. And just to avoid any confusion to frustrated tea totalers, they should put up signs saying "The consumption of alcohol is permitted throughout". Problem solved.

The smoking bans will not live forever. Apart from the impact on your business, it affects other business negatively too. Also the situation in Ireland now shows, that the next smoking generation will be huge. This is because smoking bans produces smokers - quite contrary to mainstream thinking. It is exactly what happened at the US-prohibtion 1920-33. Even if the now-youngsters will be used to smoke outside, they will not accept a draconian ban once they rise to political power - i.e. in 3 - 10 years from now. So hold on, my friends - things are changing. And your business will eventually rise again. Alcohol and smoking goes together - not alcohol and gum ...

Michael L - that's what's so bloody frustrating for non-smokers - pubs ARE for drinking and socialising but they're NOT FOR SMOKING!!!! Just because you happened to smoke in them doesn't mean they're there for smokers, anymore than they're places for fighting just because some customers get their kicks from having a fight during a night out!! This attitude is why a pub courtyard is no longer seen as a "pub courtyard" but is now labelled a "smoking area"? It's why a bar without smoke is not seen as "fresh, clean and inviting" but is somehow seen as "souless"? It is a completely and utterly absurd situation and, as I've said before, smokers need to get over themselves. Your quote about the 1930s is equally absurd - smoking may have been "paramount in society" back then, but then so was sexism, racism and negative social heirarchy; how about we bring all of them back and live for "the good ol' days"! We can enjoy a cigar in the bar with our mates while the missus gets on with darning our socks and not bothering herself with important male topics...

Fredrik - I seriously doubt anyone could be bothered to trawl through past posts, which is exactly how people such as your good self can quote lines out of context and get away with it.

'Steve W' - Pubs were/are for socialising. That incudes doing things legally. If you look at the 30's you'll find that smoking was paramount in society. Having a drink, socialising and smoking go hand in hand. I can remember my father going berserk many years ago after a man let me walk into a pub when I aged 10! So we've all moved on and now you have pubs with kids in them - bad idea IMHO because you now change the way people are. Most adults feel uneasy with children in pubs and wish they were not there. I cannot count on more than one hand over 20 years the adverse comments about adults smoking in pubs though. That reflects the understanding that pubs are for adults to congregate, chat, smoke and have a good time. We now have stupid government (including local) intervention at every level. As an adult I feel I'm being unfairly treated and I have good cause to do that. The people still alive who made this country free smoke and they cannot even sit for an hour in a pub and have a smoke and a pint - think that's fair? Adults should have the choice. Unfortunately as an adult I'm not allowed to make any decisions of my own anymore. Michael

"although I'm not pro-ban, I'm just accept-ban-and-move-on!" - Steve W on not being pro smoking ban. "There is no level of job creation that would make me support an amendment[to the smoking ban]" - Steve W not being pro smoking ban. Steve, I suppose it is possible to be not pro ban and yet not support an amendment even if it created more jobs in the trade; but how this is possible alludes me. Having, considered everything you have posted on the subject and after assiduously applying DeMorgan's Theorem to this tricky problem, I have concluded that you are in fact pro ban. I hope this earth shattering news is not too much for you!

Who the heck is Chris Roberts?

Dan - I don't find it hard to believe at all, what I refuse to accept is the scale of the impact. We can all find individual examples to support our arguments (for every smoker who's stopped going to a pub I can find you another who hasn't changed their schedule at all and has just accepted it for what it really is, a minor inconvenience) but I'm fully convinced that the affects of the ban have much more to do with timing than with the ban itself. The ban was simply the proverbial straw and that's why it is seen as so impactful. Certain people can trip off statistics about how devastating it is but, for example, the off-trade has been stealing on-trade volumes for around 20 years now (we used to have well over 70% share), so a tipping point had to come eventually; it was inevitable. I believe the ban, at worst, has simply forced the issue a little earlier and it's now just a convenient peg on which to hang all of our problems...

Andy - we'll just have to accept that anti-ban and pro-ban people will never agree on certain things (although I'm not pro-ban, I'm just accept-ban-and-move-on!), because many points are quite obviously skewed by our relative positions...

Tradesman? Did you mean Chris Holmes or Chris Roberts? Other than CAMRA they're exactly the same quality of individual.

paddy never spoke a truer words,day before the smoking ban ,had my usual 15+pensioners ,some waiting for opening ,a week later down to 2 ,no amount of offers could entice them back,even the old peoples housing,across the road stopped their twice weekly bingo sessions, because they could not smoke, damn this government to hell,and all the lackeys who aided and abetted these monsters,

To be absolutely honest Steve. I never used to drink at home before the smoking ban even though I was fully aware of the cheap deals etc . I was always a pub drinker never a home drinker, just like my dad. Why do you find it so hard to accept that the trade lost the majority of its customers through this draconian leglislation?

Steve I wish I had read your response(7th Nov) before, but no matter it doesn�t diminish its level of nonsense. The ONS Survey is conducted within the general population not just within the trade. So, the truth about total ban support against choice is the exact opposite of what you suggest. Even if the overall concern about general smoking were a good enough reason for the ban(and it most certainly isn�t) then again, the exact opposite of your argument should prevail. Since the ban(and indeed for the first time since the war) smoking prevalence has increased. This is the usual result of prohibitive laws, they have the reverse effect. Furthermore the increase in smoking is amongst the 16-35 age group, the very group targeted in the denormalisation of smoking program. I acknowledge your thinking and of good intentions generally. However, it doesn�t make them right, and the smoking ban is a prime example of such failure in thought process and ensuing policy. Also, your comment about if the ban were 10 years ago is equally misguided. Back then we had Videos,DVDs, Computer games etc. In fact we have had hi-tec home entertainment since the 80's. As for inviting people at short notice;Remember the rave scene? Flyers., word of mouth and phone calls were all that was needed to hold a massive party in any obscure location. You are right pubs are primarily about drinking and socialising. But 60% of regular customers of these type of facilities were smokers.

Dan - that's fair enough, but be totally honest and tell us, is the smoking ban the ONLY reason you decided to do this, or do you think you've also been swayed by a few other things (such as how cheap you can buy booze for home, or that nice flat-screen TV you can watch at home, with all the latest DVDs on offer at your local shop, or the ease with which you can invite your friends around at short notice via text, twitter, facebook, etc, etc)? In other words, for example, do you think you would have done this 10 years ago if the ban had been a decade earlier?

Steve, So I take it you that are no more keen on requiring your diners join the dogs outside any more than you are keen on requiring your drinkers to join the dogs outside. Why is this? Is it because it would show "how tenuous their link was to their local pub anyway". Is your dog friendly courtyard not already fully enclosed, warm, comfortable and fully furnished for the hoards of right to roam, muddy booted, goose stepping, compliant pet owners? People, who I am very glad to say, are not yet legally restricted from doing any of these things INSIDE pubs whatsoever. It’s up to publicans such as your good self to decide these matters. I don’t remember any pubs who were primarily tobacconist either, all though they did usually have tobacco vending machines, which is very sensible. However, if you know of any tobacconists in Brighton that can legally let me smoke inside and will sell me drink too, please let me know where they are, I shall buy a muddy, dog and bring that too! In fact, I would even wear my Sunday best gimp suit!

Steve W . Let me tell a little story. Last night me and a friend went to Wakefield to pick up a pub table and a couple of chairs. The reason being that we have made a little pub ourselves in the front room of our house that is always busy. The chap we bought the table from said business had never been better. I asked him why. His reply was that the best thing that ever happened to his business was the smoking ban. Since July 2007 his orders have gone through the roof as people have chosen to drink at home and make their own makeshift pubs. The sad thing is that there is plenty of ex-Pub furniture out there at the moment. Deny it all you like my friend , the puritans are on the march . Mark this..Alcohol free designated areas in pubs. This is the next step. Oh well , I,m happy in my own makeshift pub where people are free to smoke if they wish...I know where I'd rather be though...

Fredric - I worry about your logic processes sometimes. Food is exactly the same faulty logic as drink, because if you offer food then your offer, by definition, is as a food pub. As fas as I'm aware, there were no pubs who were primarily tobacconists that 'happened' to serve drinks. If they were then they quite rightly have every right to complain loudly. A better analogy would be pets and, lo and behold, I already have a rule that pets are only welcome in the courtyard (during food serving hours). Other than a very small minority of 'pet fascists' (the sort of pet owner who has a belief that a pet should be allowed anywhere that humans go, at any time) almost all pet owners agree with this rule and quite happily sit in the courtyard. Another comparable analogy would be pubs in rural areas who insist that walkers leave their boots at the door, or sit outside - because there's no intrinsic right to dirty the floors for everyone just because you're a walker, and the vast majority will happily comply with this. There are many such comparable examples in our industry and I just think smokers need to get over themselves and stop treating smoking like it's a key-to-survival activity, sitting alongside breathing, drinking water or going to the loo!!

Steve, I am sorry if the al fresco drinking analogy is not close enough for you and too silly. Do you serve food in your pub? Why not introduce al fresco only dining in to your fine establishment? You can nail a sign on the door saying "We have a fine outside dining area for patrons wishing to consume food on these premises. Patrons are reminded that a pub's whole business is drink and sociability - please take your food outside." Tapas, would do the trick, quick and easy. The customers will be banging your door down. BUT if you get less customers, you can tell them how ironic it is that diners simply don't understand what pubs are about and that it just goes to show how tenuous their relationship with pubs is. If diners whine that people have been eating INSIDE of pubs for hundreds of years, just explain to them that dining is secondary to the pub experience. Tell, them to take it outside. It's not too much to ask of your customers is it?

Fredric - that's such a tiresome point you keep making! It is NOT comparable because a pub's whole business is drink and sociability, so to suggest an experiment whereby drinkers must drink outside is simply nonsense. What smokers seem totally unable to grasp is that PUBS DID NOT EXIST FOR SMOKING!! Pubs exist, and always have, as a place to have a drink and socialise. If you chose to smoke as part of that socialising then that's fine, but it was SECONDARY to the pub experience. Ironically, it is the very fact that smoking became so intrinsic to the pub experience for so many people that it seems to be such an issue once it's changed but don't see it for anything other than what it was; It WAS NOT, never has been and never will be core reason for going to the pub...

Steve, your last post to me came across as patronising, although I am sure you did not mean it to be. You can only say arguments are full of holes if you can say how. You can only allege that people do not know the 'facts' if you can state the facts. I must admit you have lost me on how a background in export leads you to think that a smoking ban has no impact on the pub trade (where exactly were these bans you are talking about?). You have not addressed this in your message to Pete R as you said you would. In relation to your coment about Woolworth's to Pete, this was not a simple closure. The company was a separate venture only since 2001, having then been part of the Kingfisher Group. It needed to adapt to being independent and although it was going along the right lines, no doubt the financial downturn was too heavy a cross to bear. It was not this ancient family High Street store that had operated in that capacity since the 19th Century. Stores come and go. Remember Woolco, Presto, Safeway and C and A (in the UK)? Personally, I am amazed how anyone can think that the smoking ban has not had a major detrimental effect on the pub trade. What you are witnessing is reactance to governmental control - and it was always going to happen no matter what the issue.

"the very fact they would change their social lives so drastically due to the prevention of being able to smoke in a certain place just serves to prove so many other things, such as how tenuous their link was to their local pub anyway" - Steve. Steve, As I have suggested to you before, you could prevent your customers from being able to drink in a certain place, a place such as inside of your pub for example, you have some room outside, make your customers drink al fresco. If you don't have enough room knock a wall or two down and make the space. But you never seem very keen on this idea. Is this because it would quickly demonstrate to you how tenuous your customers� link was to your pub. How fickle of these people! The swines! Fancy wanting to drink INSIDE a pub of all places! What�s wrong with these people! Just take it out side that's all they have to do!

Pete R - people WERE complaining about the tie before 2007, and a lot longer before that, but before the recession, etc. it wasn't such a big deal, obviously? I don't believe pubs have ever 'breezed' through recessions, and certainly not ones as bad as the current? As I keep saying, the world was very different back then(even during the most recent previous recession). I could just as easily make a similar quote to support my arguments, such as "I don't remember big high street names like Woolworths disappearing during previous recessions?", but I can't, because no two periods in time are ever comparable with regard to retail. In the 1970s the pub really was one of the few things a working guy could do in his leisure time, so it does not surprise me in the slightest that they coped with big price rises at that time? As I've quoted to you before, I remember when a lot of clubs were closing end of the 80s / early 90s - if the ban had been introduced then it would be easy to tag all their troubles onto it, but it wasn't. And I've never doubted that the ban has had an affect and stopped some smokers from going to pubs? My argument has always been that (1) it's not as big an affect, in itself, as you like to think (because you're an aggrieved smoker it serves your purpose to proffer all smokers as such) and (2) the very fact they would change their social lives so drastically due to the prevention of being able to smoke in a certain place just serves to prove so many other things, such as how tenuous their link was to their local pub anyway (IE they'd probably give up that pub at some point, even without the ban, because there's so much more available to keep them entertained)...

Steve W - "that's my point, smoking IS (now) illegal here in certain places only." - Yes but so is drinking alcohol, especially while borough-wide AFZs are sweeping the country. Prohibition began with the smoking ban and is gradually moving on to booze. Your own livelihood is increasingly coming under threat, yet you're too blinkered to see it. If non-smoking pubs are so popular can you explain these figures? Pub closures - *2005: 102, *2006: 216, *2007: 1,409 *2008: 1,973 *2009: 2,756 (CGA). If non-smoking pubs are so popular perhaps you can explain why the two months immediately following the smoking ban prompted a 600% leap in pub bankruptcies? With a few exceptions the establishments that remain popular today are weekend verticle-drinking dens, pseudo-restaurants that masquerade as 'pubs', and the JDW coffee-houses.

KenN - the oft quoted "other countries bans" to support arguments about our ban is so full of holes to be hardly worth debating. It's a con, as very few people can be bothered (or have the knowledge) to check the facts on other countries properly. I used to work in export, in the booze trade, before coming into my pub (for 15 years prior to 2007) and in that time saw a few bans and/or smoking restrictions introduced. The affects and motivations were different in every place but, on the whole, it didn't seem to have a massive affect. It is ONLY because the world is now a much different place that the ban 'seems' to have a much bigger affect than it actually would have. This argument follows in my next answer to Pete R...

Steve W - (Re:---the Tie) I'd ask why nobody was complaining before July 2007, when pub turnover was at a 5-year-peak with further growth forecast until 2011...? Immediately after the smoking ban both turnover and Pubco share prices fell into the cellar, directly prompting a punative hike in rents and supplies to service the Pubco debt mountain. (---Local Unemployment/Utility Bills etc) I'd point out that pubs breezed through previous major recessions, and the unemployed flocked to them to drown their sorrows. (---JDW/Supermarkets/Booze Tax, etc) In the 1970's under Labour mis-government pub prices trebled within a couple of years with no significant loss of trade or pubs. If it was about price then CIU clubs wouldn't be disappearing daily. Cheap off-trade booze has been available for 40 years, mega-cheap for the last 12. It was never a concern until mid-2007. (---consumer spending going elsewhere) Partly true this one. Many of the 12-million-and-rising smokers who previously made up HALF of this industry's turnover (source: The Publican) now have extra disposable income they no longer spend in pubs.

"Fredrich Are you calling 14 million smokers 'chicken'?" - Bob. CLUCK! CLUCK!

Hmmm - does that mean that pubs "give the impression that drinking is not normal, something to be ashamed of or dirty"??� � Steve. No not in pubs, Steve, but if only drinking dens were available to drinkers it would give the impression that drinking is not normal or dirty - when it,drinking, is in fact very normal behaviour. Hmmm - 10,000,000 people also fart, pick their noses and scratch their arses in public - does that mean we should start a campaign to make it socially acceptable to do so?? Steve. I really don't know what that has to do with smoking or drinking. But I have noticed that antis have are very often obsessed with human excretory system eg Swimming pools/ urine or eating and farting etc. But if someone wanted to have pubs where people wanted to do a lot of these things, I see no reason why they should not, it's a free country, not my cup of tea. I prefer a cigarettes and alcohol in a nice and warm environment - pubs for example. Not drinking dens, Not smoking dens but Pubs where smoking is permitted - as one would expect in a country that values freedom of choice.

Steve, there might be other factors affecting the pub trade, but I cannot see how my last post is supposed to support your argument in any way. The point is that smoking bans have had the same effect in all countries, no matter when they were introduced. Those countries that realise the social damage that has been caused as a result have done a quick about face.

Fredrich Are you calling 14 million smokers 'chicken'?

Pete (re: your last post) - that's my point, smoking IS (now) illegal here in certain places only. Also, prostitution IS legal here, just not as freely as in Holland. It just serves my argument even more to point these out? Some of the unfortunate side-effects of a total ban, such as your window-cleaner's van example, are there simply because the creation of too many loopholes and/or exemptions would make any ban unworkable, and you know that. Anyway, I thought it was okay for someone to smoke in their company vehicle if only they are in it? And stop quoting lines like "none-smoking pubs were, and still are, unpopular"! NO THEY'RE NOT!! Every pud is none-smoking now and there are still 1000s and 1000s of very popular ones... Regarding your last lines, come back in 5 years and tell me there are no benefits to the smoking ban (over and above any 'negative' affects to smokers and pubs? As an avid smoker, I think you tend to grossly over-estimate the importance of smoking to society as a whole, it ain't a form of volunteer work you know :o)

Pete - so what do you say to all the licensees who claim the tie is what's killing them, with no mention of the ban? All those who cite local unemployment? All those who cite Wetherspoons or supermarkets? All those who claim it's legislation, tax, over-indulgent authorities? All those who mention utility bills? Or those who claim it's the massive competition on consumer spending from coffee shops, internet, cinemas, computer games, DVDs, other licensed businesses, the growth of raves and organised events. I'm 100% confident that the apparent affects of the ban are nothing more than unfortunate timing in a changin world and the more you shout about it as the sole reason for our struggles, the more you demean a lot of the other credible reasons...

KenN - maybe you're right, but then that would support my arguments that the smoking ban is far from being the only detrimental affect on our trade at the moment...

Fredrik - you say "As for smoking dens! No, absolutely not! It gives the impression that smoking is not normal, something to be ashamed of or dirty"? Hmmm - does that mean that pubs "give the impression that drinking is not normal, something to be ashamed of or dirty"?? You say, "Clearly as 10,000,000 + people smoke - it is a very normal activity". Hmmm - 10,000,000 people also fart, pick their noses and scratch their arses in public - does that mean we should start a campaign to make it socially acceptable to do so?? And on your last point - nobody can claim is it "perfectly safe" to visit anywhere that allows smoking. I'm not saying it isn't safe, just that you can't claim it is (and it would be a bit of a daft claim anyway)...

"Allowing smoking didn't pack out the pubs run by messrs Hogan, Blows and Howitt." - Bob. Bob, I am only speculating but I would have thought that the risk of being fined for smoking in those pubs would have been too much for most people and it would be well known that that these pubs were under the gaze of the health police.

Allowing smoking didn't pack out the pubs run by messrs Hogan, Blows and Howitt.

Steve W - Some of your other comments are exasperating. (1) Re: Holland - True, prostitution and 'soft' drugs are illegal here. However tobacco is a 100% legal product. But a window-cleaner cannot legally smoke in his own van, or in his local pub at the express invitation of the landlord. (2) "smokers have no choice - so far, so fair." - Wrong. Smokers can choose to party at home usually joined by their non-smoking friends. Publicans have no choice, other than watch their businesses wither & die. It wasn't the smokers' fault that non-smoking pubs were, and still are, generally unpopular. That was simple consumer preference. Yet your posts to Frederik and Andy imply the only justification for the ban is revenge, as if we somehow 'had it coming'. (3) Re: (pub closures) "it still would not outweigh the positive affects overall" - There ARE no positive effects. Read again what's happened in Ireland. Ruined businesses, social isolation, cultural decline, soaring smoking rates. NO recordable health benefits. Now read what you said to Andy - you are putting forward the perfect argument for restricting alcohol sales in pubs.

Steve W - "any such experiment (as JDW) was bound to fail, for the very reasons I've just stated about it needing to be national, across all pubs." - No Steve, not if the ban has the 'overwhelming majority support ' you claim. Anyway I'd argue that the smoking ban itself meets your criteria. Before the ban, busy pubs at a 5-year peak. Since the non-smoking 'experiment'? Plummeting turnover, shrinking customer base and 53+ pubs closing every week. Those results seem pretty conclusive to me.

Steve, if a smoking ban in pubs is supported by the vast majority of people, then by definition it would not have had a detrimental effect on the industry's trade. Rather the reverse has happened. I do not think there are any people who would try and argue that the overall effect has been extremely negative (as it has in every other country also) and I believe it is only a small minority who pub regulars who think it a good idea. At best, most of the non-smokers don't really care.

Steve, I distinctly remember going to entirely smoke free pubs prior to the smoking ban and I remember there being many non-smoking areas of pubs and I think I am right in saying that people who smoke are out numbered by about 3 to 1. So it would seem that given that a very large number of non smokers found smoking pubs considerably more fun to go to than the smoke free ones. What do you mean by boot and other foot? Smokers were putting the boot in to people by avoiding smoke free pubs and smoke free sections of pubs? How is that putting the boot in? How would you feel about a law that prohibited smoke free pubs and smoke free areas in pubs against the wishes of the customers and publicans? As for smoking dens! No, absolutely not! It gives the impression that smoking is not normal, something to be ashamed of or dirty. Clearly as 10,000,000 + people smoke – it is a very normal activity. I would only accept a situation where a publican can choose to hang a sign saying “Smoking allowed through out” on the door. Anything less is not acceptable, other wise it defeats the whole point relaxing the smoking ban, which is to restore choice, boost pubs and reassure the public that it is perfectly safe to visit and work in pubs where smoking is permitted.

Andy - the problem with the surveys you qoute is that they are not objective - if you ask licensees about their support for a total ban now then you're going to get a lot who support 'choice' BUT their primary decision is because they believe the ban is harming their business NOT because of any consideration with smoking itself, which is why any such survey is flawed. Ask the population who have no connection with the pub trade and the support is over-whelming. You may not like this fact but, in reality, the only consideration for the government HAS to be the smoking itself, not subjective comments from any particular industry? The only time they could consider an industry's comments (or the affect on that industry) is if the negative affect to that industry far outweighs the positive affect of the ban in question; leaving aside the fact that nobody can even decide on what is most harming our industry at the moment, even if we could prove categorically that the ban was the only issue facing us, it still would not outweigh the positive affects overall - we just don't see it because we're blinded by our own interests...

Fredrik - I'm not going over all the same arguments as previous threads but you need to be cautious of statements like, "If the smoking/mixed pubs are more popular with the public than the entirely smoke free pubs; that is a good measure of what the public really want out of pubs". Just because a smoking pub is popular, it doesn't mean it has full support for smoking. None-smokers used to go to smoking pubs because they had no choice. That's why the ban came in and now the boot is on the other foot; smokers have no choice - so far, so fair. If 'choice' were allowed again then I don't think you'd have both groups operating free choice; what you would have is none-smoking pubs with smokers who wish they weren't there (grudgingly following none-smoking friends for the night) and smoking pubs with none-smokers who didn't want to be there (grudgingly following their smoking friends for the night), which isn't actually choice at all and negates the whole point of having a smoking ban! That's why I don't believe the ban will ever be relaxed. I know you won't accept this following line (for all of the 'personal freedoms' reasons continuously spouted) but it all comes down to the fact that you're arguing for national changes based on no other reason than the will to carry out a bad habit in front of others - why can't any smoker ever see this for what it is? If you truly believe smoking, and smoking alone, is the primary reason for people not coming out then instead of arguing for smoking pubs, let's argue for permission to start a business called smoking dens? It must be staffed by smokers and you must be a smoker to enter. You can't drink, or do any other licensable activities in there, it's just a building for smokers to meet and chat and smoke (like a pub, but for smoking instead of drinking) - see how popular that would be...

Pete - you and I both know that any such experiment (as JDW) was bound to fail, for the very reasons I've just stated about it needing to be national, across all pubs.

Wiel - yours are fair and comendable comments but, as I have said many times, it's just not comparable to use other countries (and vastly different cultures) as an example of what can and can't be done on a subject like this (it is only comparable in very generic, human examples - such as involving human atrocities, etc)? Let me offer a perfect example on this as a direct comparison with your country, Holland: what do you think the chances are of me starting a campaign and overturning UK laws to open up a drug cafe in my home town, a la your 'coffee shops'? Let's not stop there, I'll also take over the empty Woolworths opposite my pub and open up a brothel; the large shop window will be ideal for the girls to pose in and I know for an absolute fact that I'd make a fortune and it would be the busiest business in town, offering a boost to local employment! No, I didn't think so...

I think what it needs is a govt that's actually interested in reflecting the will of the people and acting in the common good, We haven't had one of them for a while. In recent years our politicians have spent too much time making war in foreign lands, and then justifying their pointless existence on the homefront by creating silly rules like banning smoking in pubs because of the exaggerated risks of second hand smoke. It's killing our pubs, our culture, and our identity. I resent it deeply, and as a result I've completely lost confidence in all of our main political parties.

Steve Where is the overwhelming support for you speak of? The ONS surveys a year prior and a year after, showed that 66% supported a partial ban. One that exempted wet pubs and PM clubs. HMG had to change the wording the following year to remove choice, in order to manufacture support for the ban, just as they did prior to its enactment. Some in the trade are falling for the lies and spin now, the same as they did before. F2C conducted a survey across a wide selection of pubs countrywide a year or so ago. The vast majority wanted choice restored, and would not vote Labour again as a result of the ban.

'But such an 'experiment' would give you a false result, because any such pub would inevitably attract any and all smokers wishing to make a point.' Steve W. Steve, You are of course right and sure as mustard, others would boycott such a pub/experiment to make an opposite point. That�s why the very best way for everyone to make their points is to be free to go to smoke free or mixed/smoking pubs as they see fit. If the smoking/mixed pubs are more popular with the public than the entirely smoke free pubs; that is a good measure of what the public really want out of pubs. And free of the influence of the neo-prohibitionist mind set, the normal and reasonable thing to do would be to restore choice in this matter.

Steve W - There has actually been such an experiment. You may recall JD Wetherspoon boss Tim Martin announced JDW would ban smoking in ALL of its pubs by May 2006. In the event only a sample 60 of the company's estate went completely non-smoking on Wednesday, 4 May 2006. The immediate drop in trade was so dramatic that smoking was restored to 49 of those pubs within three months, with another 5 welcoming back the smokers before the year's end.

Tradesman, the experiences in Holland, where the smoking ban was effectively attacked by a group of more then 1200 licensees who united, shows that publicans can really unite to make a fist. In October 2008, more then 5000 publicans and their customers demonstrated against the smoking ban in The Hague. A publican told me: "I never expected that all these individuals would be able to make a fist like this!". In a couple of lawsuits, financed by contributions of these 1200 publicans, we managed to stop the enforcement of the smoking ban and smoking is allowed in most pubs in Holland again. At this moment, after his defeats in court, the Minister of Health is trying to repair the legislation and considering ventilation as an alternative for a blanket smoking ban. What we did in Holland can be achieved in the UK too. United you really can win!

Tradesman - very commendable but I think you failed to mention one small fact, that the ban has overwhelming majority support amongst the general public, and probably a majority support within our industry as well? That's why, no matter how strongly you feel about it, it probably isn't going to change...

Soapy - but of course 'smoking pubs' would make a profit, if they did before then why shouldn't they now? But such an 'experiment' would give you a false result, because any such pub would inevitably attract any and all smokers wishing to make a point. It would have to be a national 'experiment' running for at least a full year, which ain't ever going to happen I'm afraid, but I'd predict that it would make little difference once the novelty wore off - there are many other factors affecting people's use of pubs.

Trouble is, nothing will get done to stop it. As a trade we are too fragmented because we are all individuals trying to make our own way in the world. That is the nature of the beast and what makes pubs unique. Its our strength but unfortunately it will also be our downfall.We all know that whether or not it affects our own outlet, the smoking ban is the death knell for the vast majority of British pubs. We need ONE spokesperson to fight our case. Not a committee or several small groups but one mouthy, loud, well informed and eloquent individual with a passion for this heritage of ours. If it is left for much longer it will be gone forever. I nominate Chris Holmes of Tynemill. A founder of CAMRA and champion of traditional pubs. A former economics lecturer and hugely successful businessman. He takes no prisoners and believe me, he is the man for the job! I havent spoken to Chris for around 10 years but in that time I havent come acros anyone more suited to the task. WHERE ARE YOU CHRIS? YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU! Cometh the hour..........

You can indeed turn back the clock Steve, why not set up an socio-economical experiment to prove it one way or the other? Open up a few pubs in each town and see if smoking pubs do make a profit, see if the smokers come back. If you are right what do you have to lose? Nothing at all do you?

I run a wet pub, no food, between the smoking ban and the tie, I feel like staying in bed some days, as at the end of some days, I would be no worse off.

Thanks Steve, you're a gent. I respect your opinions however much we may disagree. We can't go back in time but we can examine the trends and genuine stats compiled during the years before and since the ban. IMHO any that began to radically change around July 2007 tell their own story. I reckon there'll be a huge public backlash against political correctness and enviromentalism in 2-3 years. I also believe that an amendment to the smoking law is inevitable sometime over that period because otherwise this industry has had it. When it does come if I'm right there should be an overnight surge in trade followed by incremental growth over the following couple of years.

Good article Mr Robinson and you've not even mentioned the alcohol prohibitionists who are waiting in the wings. Pubs should be the one place next to one's home where a beer and a smoke are acceptible as the place to relieve the stresses of the day but now that the loonies have got their way, pubs are destined to be a thing of the past. VERY sad. RIP Englands culture.

I remember having to push hard on the doors just to get into pubs when unemployment reached just over three million 1986, at (over 10% of the population). Something tells me that finding somewhere to sit in pubs won’t be a problem in the current period of unemployment. Although it is easier to get a Thai curry and watch wall to wall TV than in 1986, which is great if you like that sort of thing.

Well written piece Pete, as always. I don't agree with all of it but it makes your point very clearly! I just wish we could go back in time and re-run the last 2 years without a ban, just so we could actually compare the differences? The people in my camp believe we wouldn 't be in a much different situation now, with or without a ban, and the people in your camp believe all would be rosy without the ban? I guess we'll just never know...

I worked behind a bar in Cork until our pub was closed down. It is very sad what has happened but even sadder to see it again here. as a nonesmoker I do not like smoky pubs but with the fans on it was fine. Better than no pub at all.