Forest re-ignites calls for smoking ban reform

For once Steve W has said something of value: vote the bastards out. Here, as a non-citizen, is my "wallet vote": I don't visit Britain because of the ban. Potential pub customers are casting their own wallet votes every time they stay in.

Pete - the "mandatory code of conduct" isn't about to be imposed? In fact, the next step is consultation with relevant people to get their views on it; I've signed up to attend the consultation in Exeter next month, precisely because I wan't to be involved and see for myself what is being tabled. How many people will whinge about it but do nothing? But, again, it's a relatively small thing that's being blown out of proportion. As far as I can tell, a code that tells us things we should be doing anyway as good operators - such as not using irresponsible promotions (we never do) and that we have to offer 125ml wine glasses (we already do) - is hardly the death-knoll of the industry is it? It really must be a terrible stress you live with if you genuinely believe that every piece of government legislation is part of a master plan to implement some "1984" state control scenario! Let me share a big secret with you - we live in one of the world's best democracies and if you don't like what the government is doing, or where it's policies are leading us, and that view is shared by a lot of other people, then you simply vote them out. Controversial I know but try it, it might work...

Steve, This country is just as capable of making sensible and successful amendments to blanket smoking bans as any other country is. Willing, maybe not just yet. Capable, Yes. Successful, Yes.

Steve W - If you're right then have I imagined the Mandatory 'Code of Conduct' about to be imposed? Look up 'mandatory' in the dictionary. It means "Required or commanded by authority". Once the State has that particular time-bomb in place they can systematically add anything they like. Local Authorities and quangos will use it to demand licence reviews. For certain it will be repeatedly abused as part of the anti-pub crusade. Look around you Steve, the writing is already on the wall. The smoking ban wasn't the end of State regulation - it was the beginning. It's NOT "just government trying to govern". It's social engineering in it's ugliest form.

Shazs (and to Pete as well) - As a start, I simply do not believe you'll ever be successful in achieving a relaxation of the ban because I believe any relaxation would result in the ban's total collapse, which is what the government also probably believes? I have no fear of it happening for myself, I fear for the industry if it happened. As I've said many times, any such relaxation would be controlled by so much legislation and surrounded by so many possible loopholes that it would become unworkable, from both sides, and I believe it would put us into a worse position than we're in now. I believe that many lessees such as yourself, who are struggling, might somehow find the cash to implement the necessary changes and then, lo and behold, find out the hard way that maybe the smoking ban wasn't the only reason your business is suffering? Or find out, when the inevitable raft of smoking enforcement officers visit you, that you've not done something to the exact specification? I'm sorry (and I'm genuine about that, even if you don't believe it) if your business truly is failing JUST because of the smoking ban but you do need to ask yourself why smokers now feel the need to stay away from your pub? Did they really only visit you because they could smoke with their pint? Is that really the only reason they've stopped coming? By saying that you are, in effect, admitting that the only reason anyone visited you before the ban was because of smoking? Unfortunately, if your pub's only attraction was as a smoking venue then it's inevitable it will go out of business if a smoking ban is enforced, in the same way that my pub would go out of business, for example, if pubs in my town were somehow banned! There's nothing anyone can do about that, as it's plainly indefensible, no matter what you do or how hard you work. My main point has been to argue that I simply don't believe the majority of pubs closing are because of this. I used my own situation as a perfect example, where I bought my pub from a lessee (after the ban had started) who was claiming exactly that! He would have lasted around 6 more months, tops, before going bankrupt and would have told everyone "the damn smoking ban is killing this industry, it put me out of business", and everyone would have believed him because that's what people do; they question little and believe a lot, especially if it fits in with their conspiracy theories about big, bad government. Pete is a perfect example of this - he's pis*ed off because he can't "enjoy a pint and a fag" anymore (even though he can, outdoors, or in the many beautiful smoking areas lovingly created by publicans up and down the land) and so he'll pick up on anything that "proves" the ban is the devil incarnate. He's also one of the many who continually spout "this is only the start, they'll be banning drinking next, etc", but lines such as this have been cried throughout our history. The government has a job to do; if they believe town centres are becoming no-go zones then they muct react and try to control it - that may result in some mis-guided regulations but it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, it's just government trying to govern!

Steve W - You are correct in saying "EVERY drinker behaves differently". I agree that most drinkers are not anti-social or violent, in much the same way most smokers are not the dominant, selfish bigots you like to portray. But the State does not differentiate. You believe "we can never credibly expect a ban on drinking in public areas", but already the country is becoming carpeted with rigorously enforced Alcohol Free Zones in areas where smoking is freely permitted. As for the future, whilst they won't ban pubs from selling alcohol they WILL tie you up in so much red tape and additional taxation your hard-earned business could become unviable. An accompanying propaganda campaign of the type sanctioned against smokers would portray publicans like yourself as if you were no better than irresponsible drug pushers.

Steve W - Actually Sir Liam Donaldson really did engineer the pub smoking ban since way back in 2002 in order to "save the lives" of 1000 bar-workers every year. I deliberately used the word "engineered" because the ban wasn't simply 'initiated' by someone. It was carefully schemed, calculated and cunningly contrived to hoodwink politicians into believing there were votes to be gained. As the Surgeon General the egomanical Donaldson was pivotal in this sham. Donalson is the same man who, four years ago. confidently predicted bird flu would "kill about 50,000 people in the UK". The same man who, as recently as 10 years ago, was still predicting UK deaths "in the hundreds of thousands" from CJD (mad cow disease). This influential man has now vowed to cure the nation's 'drink problem' and promises he will "upset some people and ruffle some feathers" in the process. To repeat - you cannot pick and choose which rights as a publican you wish to surrender.

I ask again Steve W what is wrong with a smoking room and giving people choice? If you decide not to have a smoking room than that is your choice and will be respected, allow us the right to have that same freedom to choose what is right for our businesses. If you again repeat the ban should stay as it is, then I will say again, your motive is fear and will add selfishness and arrogance.

Pete Robinson, I completely agree with you, but you paint such a utopian picture that speaking as a mother i am tempted to go along with the idea. But speaking as a licensee it fills me with dread. However i'm on the edge of bankcruptcy because of the smoking ban ( no doubt in my mind!!) and am tempted to give up the fight and let the likes of Steve W reap what they sow and stand back and laugh at them for their naiivety. They are blindly following this government like lemmings over a cliff and deserve all they get.

Pete quite correct. No one seems to be able to actually define either smoking related or alcohol related, preferring to leave it up to the imagination of the reader to fill in their own definition. Come on what exactly is drink related. If a barman steals a pint is that a drink related crime statistic? Ken Nason

Pete - I see the point you're making but you're one of the masters of debating in the very manner in which you shout-down in others! Look at the comment in your first line "...engineered the pub smoking ban". If this were presented objectively, it would read something like "initiated the ban on smoking in public places"? You also seem to think that all smoking-related statistics are fantasy but all other statistics are set in stone? There are some very real differences between the two habits - the main one being that the affects of smoke are totally independant of the person creating the smoke; the affects of drink are simply to exacerbate an already anti-social personality. In other words - a vicar and thug can light up a cigarette with exactly the same negative affects (regardless of what you believe they are) but EVERY drinker behaves differently. The effects of smoking are directly caused by the smoke, the effects of drinking are not because of the alcohol but because of the person. I've been drunk many times and have never urinated in somebody's doorway or beaten somebody up! That's the difference and that's the reason we can never credibly expect a ban on drinking in public areas in the same way as a ban on smoking. At worst it would be a ban enforced for other reasons, most of which we see already (EG. no drinking during an event to prevent missiles being thrown, no drinking around a pool to prevent risk of cuts, no drinking in a bus depot to stop the drivers getting drunk, etc. etc)!!

Colin - interesting point. I'd heard of Zohnerism before but I'd like to think that most of the people who are most interested in the issues (or making decisions on them), on either side of the debate, would not be too influenced by this effect?

Chas - it would take a long time for a shot of any spirit to totally evaporate but you miss the point - any carcinogens in a drink are the drinker's choice, and risk, to consume, and theirs only. I also believe that the health issues are a minor concern to most non-smokers? Ask any none-smoker and by far the bigger nuisance of having a smoker near you was the smelly clothes, the poor air quality, the stinging eyes and the sheer lack of appreciation for somebody elses comfort. You also mis-understand me (probably because there are so many people creating this image of me as a totalitarian, puritan). I'm actually very libertarian in my beliefs. I beleve fully in your right to smoke and I will always defend this. I believe all drugs should be legalised. I believe prostitution should be fully legalised and destigmatised. However, I also believe that whilst people should have fewer controls on their personal habits, this should be accompanied by more stringent control where that habit may affect others. So, with the drugs example, giving the government control would remove criminal gangs from the mix and it should be sold only from licensed 'dealers'. With prostitution, it should be conducted only in licensed areas away from residential areas, etc. Likewise with smoking, no problem as long as it's conducted where none-smokers won't suffer any ill-effects. That seems a perfectly fair and balanced view to take in any society...

Adam - so many subjective comments based on nothing more than other people's quotes and Daily Mailesque headlines...

Peter - they're allowed to give blood because blood is continually generated, hence it wowuldn't suffer from long-term damage (until, of course, somebody was actually suffering from any condition that may poison the blood). All organs are checked before use, so a smoker can be a registered donor but that doesn't necessarily mean the'd use his/her lungs. for example, after death, it only means there's permission to use them.

Fi777 - you are, of course, correct. I just don't think that outcome is very likely, in reality...

Shaz - you are so wrong about me and/or my motives that it's not even worth explaining this (again)...

Steve W - Earlier this year Liam Donaldson, the Govt's Chief medical Officer who engineered the pub smoking ban, employed the phrase "passive drinking" to describe the effects of alcohol on non-drinkers. Donaldson said: "Let's try and imagine a country where nobody is physically or sexually assaulted because of alcohol. Let's try and imagine a country where nobody dies in an accident caused by alcohol; where no child has to cower in the corner while its mother is beaten by a drunken partner; where the streets are welcoming for all on a Saturday night; and where the streets are free of urine and vomit on a Sunday morning." Stirring stuff. If they can force through a smoking ban based on nothing other than scientific superstition just imagine what they could do with the very real statistics for alcohol-related death and injury.

Thought you might like to see this gem i found ,by an researcher looking into the effect of smoking bans on industry,its an example of how its easy to distort the perception of risk from actual risk, an 14 year old American student surveyed his class of 50 students,about the risk of a chemical called Di hydrogen Monoxide,this compound contributes to the green house affect,the erosion of the landscape,corrosion and rusting of many metals,and is found in excised cancer tumours,of terminal cancer patients,despite this it is used as an fire retardant ,in pesticides ,and as an additive of many junk foods,43 of the students voted to ban the substance ,the substance WATER, the the term Zohnerism is used to refer to a true fact being used by a scientifically ignorant public to generate a false conclusion [the boys name was Nathan zohner,] about sums up most antis on here

SteveW. It is said that there over 2,000 more carcinogens in one measure of alcohol than in one cigarette. Leave a measure of Martini in a glass overnight and see how it disappears into the air. The air that one would breath in a pub, where alcohol is served.

either people like steve w are blind to the destruction of pubs and clubs that this governments law has done, or they dont give a dam about it, how could anyone honestly believe that the thousands of pubs and clubs that have been lost is down to the recession, cheap booze in supermarkets and all the other things that have always been around before the smoking ban? if i had a busness that was buzzing and then the government came out with a law that forced me to act like a two faced jack with most of my customers and to disrespect the elderly ex servicemen who fort for this country by chucking them outside to have a fag no matter what the weather, just to keep a handful of gullible snobs happy, i would not be willing to do that, on principal alone and i would be forced to shut down, this is what is happening right now all over this country, this is what dictatorship is doing, from most publicans piont of view this law have caused a disaster to there industries and as long as people who think like steve w are in the driving seat things will never be fair and free for all.

Steve, asbestos in the lung is a necessary and sufficient cause of mesothelioma and asbestosis. I don't remember anyone smoking asbestos in pubs. Even if everyone stopped drinking in pubs,smoking in pubs and eating fatty foods in pubs, the vast majority of people would still die of cancers and cardiovascular disease.

Just a thought for the day...If passive smoking is so deadly for people around you why are long-term smokers allowed to give blood and/or donate organs.

And you should mention there is also a possibility that the outcome would be the most expected one: Smoking rooms are allowed, people are happy and the tolerance is restored. Nothing more or less than that.

Danny, think of me what you will, I'll only worry about perception of my personality from people who actually know me! I've half answered your point already but let me suggest that there a lot more possible outcomes from a change to the ban than the very simplistic one put forward by many smokers; IE. "let publicans choose and all will be fine". Let me suggest one possible outcome: ban is relaxed; publicans get to choose, publicans spend a lot of money on purification and pub modifications; publicans realise that loss of trade wasn't just down to the ban; oh sh*t, now we have to do something else but we have no meny left! Or let me suggest another possible situation: ban is relaxed, publicans invest in modifications and go back to being smoking zones; other industries jump on the bandwagon and suggest it's unfair to allow this for one industry only; government realises the ban has been undermined and must act quickly to stop any further decline; government reinstates the ban; publicans left with very expensive modifications that are now redundant. Okay, these examples are also very simplistic; I'm just trying to point out that it's never as simple as a lot of people hope it will be and I take the view that any relaxation COULD be far worse for many struggling licensees...

Fredrich - You say, "If smoking had such a profound effect on others , then why were smoking pubs so much more popular than the smokefree ones"? Let me reply to that with a similarly meaningless statement - "if asbestos had such a profound affect on others then why did so many builders use it". Or let me try another, "If heroine is so bad for your health then why do so many people use it"? My point is this - popularity has very little, if any, correlation with what's right and wrong. As far as your analogy statement, that's not my analogy, it's yours, which you continuously invent as some sort of comparable that, self-evidently, isn't comparable in anything other than the fact you mention 'al fresco' every time! If I presented my argument like you then I could just mention any situation that's unsuitable 'al fresco' and use that as evidence for why the ban is wrong - EG. "Let's force all of Marks and Spencer's customers to try on their clothes outside the store - 'al fresco' - and see how happy they'd be"! It's a silly and non-sensical way to argue against my points. As for your last point - I agree with you that the ban was a bad idea for pubs, in itself. Of course it would have been better for the industry as a whole to simply carry on as it were (ignoring any other factors of course). My argument has always been that the ban, overall, has many more benefits than negatives and so, as an industry, we should just accept it, adapt and start trying to reap the benefits instead of always looking backwards.

Chas - I didn't say that, so I don't know where you got that line from? Are there the same amount of carcinogens in alcohol as there are in cigarettes? I'd be interested to meet the scientist who was brave enough to claim that one! I'd also be interested to hear from you how those 'alcoholic carcinogens' affect anyone other than the person drinking them, as opposed to tobacco carcinogens, which have the potential to affect every person who's breathing them in? I must also admit that I've never, ever got home after an evening out and stank of booze simply because I've been standing next to a drinker - you must know some seriously shaky or dribbly people if they spill and spit that much on their colleagues :o)

Ken - you're bright enough to realise that no reasonable person actually believed there was going to be an overnight rush of none-smokers; this is an empty criticism of the ban. If you believed that then it says more about your own naivety than anything else. It takes a long time to modify people's behaviours but I'm confident that the continuing attraction of none-smokers back into the trade (albeit via dining pubs, etc. at first and admittedly small compared to the apparent loss of smoking trade) will trickle through to all pubs. Just look at it logically - on the face of it (IE ignoring the smoke itself) there is NO reason why smokers should prefer pubs over none-smokers? I doubt there's much correlation between smoking and drinking in the population as a whole (IE. I doubt that smokers also represent the majority of drinkers) so there's no reason a licensee's customer population won't balance out eventually to reflect the number of smokers in the total population?

Pete (and this may also answer a similar point from others) - but I can guarantee that the moment any form of smoking 'cage' were allowed (regardless of its form), you'd then have many smokers moaning that they have to sit in another area. This would result in a situation where licensees don't really have a choice, as such, between smoking and none-smoking 'areas', their hand would be forced to choose between smoking and none-smoking 'whole pub' - and then that causes the problems of none-smokers having to follow smokers' preferences (which I've explained many times before), which results in even that choice being a false one; in reality, all publicans (except for those with very specific offerings who would benefit from being totally smoke-free in a 'choice' world) would then be 'forced' to go back to having smoking venues. Now I know any smoker will see this as no problem, as you'll use that as evidence that pubs are natural smoking venues, but what that actually proves is that licensees are being forced to accept smoking purely on financial grounds, which is the very reason a blanket ban was necessary in the first place! PS. smoking and none-smoking areas prior to the ban were a farce - just one smoker in the corner of a room pollutes the atmosphere of the whole room; smoke doesn't know how to follow artifical demarkation lines!

Steve W "If I was going to spray strong aftershave, I'd move away from other people. If I was gojng to fart (as mentioned below), I'd move outside or to the toilet. If I had really bad B.O. I'd take a shower before sitting in a crowded room. If I smoked".....,I would sit in the glass cage or seperate smoking room!! Could you please tell me Steve W what's wrong with this scenario? May i hazard a guess? Fear! fear that your fantastic pub with it's wonderful smoke area would be deserted. Is it possible that since the ban the pubs who wouldn't, couldn't or didn't provide a state of the art area have lost some of their smoking customers to you , and if the room was allowed you would be back on a level playing field. All the smokers you have showed so little respect for would desert you in droves. Smokers may be a minority in this country but they were a majority in our pubs and they have been treated abysmally.

there is nothing wrong with having seperate smokers rooms and venues from non smokers, it is only a problem for robotic people like steve w.

Steve, If smoking had such a profound effect on others , then why were smoking pubs so much more popular than the smokefree ones. As for your toilet analogy, why not make your toilets al fresco and see what happens. When your customers don't want to use them, call them lazy. It's your analogy. If the message gets through that the trade should stop blaming it's customers, I don't care what analogy is used. So long as it saves me the rather surreal experience of explaining to a publican on "the publican" why blanket smoking bans are a really,really bad idea for pubs.

SteveW. So everybody else are selfish except for drinkers? Don't drinkers smell of booze and don't the carcinogens from alcohol have the same effect as carcinogens from cigarettes? Have you not noticed that anti-alcohol groups are now asking for further restrictions, just like the anti-smoking groups did?

steve, just to stir the pot a little more from your last post is this not the main point of many licensees complaints of the effects of the ban?"For years, none-smokers have had to do exactly that and stay away from any place that might be too smokey " This is the saviour that was put forward by all who were supporting the ban as to reassure the licensees that their businesses would not pay the price of social engineering. The customers that were not customers and stayed away because of the smokers byproducts. This surely has been proven beyond all doubt as a lie at worst and a misconception at best. These potential self excluded customers never existed. They are a myth a falcy another social engineering lie.The fact remains that licensees (and other leisure businesses) paid the financial cost of the implimentation of this ban with no consultation or equity and criminalisation greater than the perpritator for non implimentation. In a free democratic society this has no place. That is what is wrong with the ban., Ken Nason

Some on here are saying separate smoking rooms would cause more problems than they solve, but they're never specific about what exactly these problems would be. Also, as has previously been pointed out, any landlord wishing to keep his.her pub completely non-smoking would be perfectly free to do so. What's the problem???

clif e - why do I constantly have to defend my personality simply because I have a different viewpoint to somebody else?? I have never once in my life thought "to hell with everyone else, as long as I'm alright". Ironically, that is actually the position that many smokers took every time they lit up a cigarette, which is precisley why a ban was the only way to modify their selfish behaviour. If I was going to spray strong aftershave, I'd move away from other people. If I was gojng to fart (as mentioned below), I'd move outside or to the toilet. If I had really bad B.O. I'd take a shower before sitting in a crowded room. If I smoked, I'd wait until I was outside before lighting up - all of these examples, every one, are examples of common decency but smokers have got away with disrespecting other people's comfort for so long that they somehow think they're now losing a God-given right to light up anywhere? For example, they'll sit there and demand that the right & just position should be: "if you don't like smoke then get out of the room" but, surely, the opposite position is the just one - IE. "if you want to smoke then get out of the room". For years, none-smokers have had to do exactly that and stay away from any place that might be too smokey (or, as most used to do, just suffer in silence and accept it), but now the tables are turned it's suddenly a big issue? Why is that I wonder? Oh, maybe it's because smokers now realise what it was like for all of the none-smokers and they don't like it...

Fredrik - and as I have said before, your attempt to compare drinking with smoking just doesn't work because drinking doesn't affect others around you (except in very specific cases!), so any attempt to push drinkers outside would, of course, result in ridicule. A more apt comparison would be to banish somebody outisde who constantly farts, and not many people would moan about that would they!!

Steve W - I wouldn't call it a "glass cage" but I do see your point. The all important difference is that it will be indoors. We won't have to leave our drinks behind or lose our seats. Even proper 'heated' outdoor smoking areas are useless for 8 months of the year. You cannot heat a frosty wind blowing through a 50% open shelter in weather where you wouldn't leave a window open at home. And It's not just smokers who complain about being forced by the State to smoke outside. Neighbours complain about the noise, people feel threatened having to push their way past to get inside a pub or even to walk past on the pavement. In all it's a degrading spectacle and one with the unforseen consequence of 'advertising' tobacco use to passing youngsters who may see it as cool. Before the ban many pubs, especially those serving bar meals, had designated smoking and non-smoking areas. Yet the smoking areas were always packed while the rest was quite sparsly populated. When future smoking areas are in 'glass cages' I think you'll find it will never be a lonely place to quaff a few.

steve w, people like you are jokers, it seems you have no idea of what freedom of choice, equality and divercity mean, as long as you are happy, to hell with everyone else, would you go somewhere where you dont feel relax or welcome? at the moment this is how a lot of people who smoke are made to feel by this government in this country when they go to a pub or club, that is why a lot of them stay away, so if people want to do something to stop them feeling like this and to save what is left of the pubs and clubs "seperate smoking rooms and venues" would be the right way for everyone, yes there are more non smokers than smokers but i am glad that all non smokers dont think like you.

Steve , As I have said to you before, experiment in your pub, make it al fresco drinking only. See what happens. Just say "I am not banning drinkERS from inside I am just banning drinkING!". And when they say that this makes them uncomfortable just tell them they are addicts,selfish and lazy. Blame the customers.

Guys - it's easy to throw comments around such as "he's a government robot", "he's a sucker", etc. but all that really does is to show you have no real arguments! Let me offer a few simple facts: 1. If any of you ACTUALLY cared about your local pubs closing then you'd carry on using them whilst arguing against the ban. To stand there saying "I care" is ridiculous - you care so much that all it takes to stop you from supporting your local pub is the fact that you can't have a ciggie and a pint at the same time. 2. You all bleat on like it is now illegal for you to smoke, or to go into pubs? It's not a law against smokers or a law against pubs, it's a law against SMOKING IN ANY PUBLIC AREA. Not smokERS, but smokING! If you could truly stand outside of all of this and look in, you'd see just how petty it is. You've been asked to conduct your bad habit in places where it might minimise the affect to those who don't want to be affected - what's so wrong with that? 3. Democracy - where the right to govern is invested in the population and exercised through majority rule. None-smokers are in a VAST MAJORITY in this country.

Re the 'glass cage', Steve W, The system works very well in Amsterdam. In many bars, the 'cage' area is actually larger than the non-smoking serving area.

So shall I dare ask the question? - Trade increased or decreased since the ban? Back to reality having known the answer to that one. Personally I believe it's upto people who own/run/manage premises if smoking should be allowed/disallowed. If the lady 'Liz' believes that she does better from a no smoking environment then that's fine and all I can say if 'very lucky lady'. However most know quite the opposite so the choice should be purely and simply their's. It'd have been useful if the so called government took time to prove that passive smoking is damaging to health - Oh hang on there is NO proof! Michael

Steve W, where is the democracy at work? In England, the Labour 2005 manifesto promised a partial ban and the Government broke its promise. If most other EU countries can provide some kind of compromise deal on pubs then I'm sure we can too. I am not inconvenienced too much as I now drink at home most of the time but I don't want to see too many more pubs closed down.

Pete - perhaps you can explain why all of the smokers who seemingly have a big problem having to move to another area at the moment (All the usual comments, such as "treated like animals", "second-class citizens", etc) would have no problem having to sit in a glass cage??

steve w talking about your reasons for not having seperate smoking rooms in pubs and clubs is a joke, if what you say would happen, if seperate smoking rooms was allowed then that is what i call peoples choice "majority", it seems like something you and this government is scared of.

to steve w, it is painfully obvious that you are one of those suckers that walks around in a bubble with blinkers and earmuffs on, the fact that thousands of clubs and pubs have closed and thousands more are just hanging on by the skin of there teeth since your governments ban, and you still say smokers and the like minded are a minority, as for gullible make your government ammend all your reasons for the destruction of pubs and clubs "recession, cheap booze in supermarkets ect" and see if it will stop pubs from closing, the truth is there isn't enough gullible dictatorship minded robots to fill all the pubs and clubs, to stop them from closing down.

It would not be compulsory. Any publican who wishes for his/her pub to remain smoke free will be allowed to.

The comment from Liz (I assume a landlady) makes the argument for some pubs being smoke free and others being smoking pubs even stronger. There are people who like to smoke with a pint and others that don't. Both parties could easily be accommodated. Being an occasional smoker, I would not be upset by spending an evening with friends in a non smoking pub if that were the majority decision. Equally, I would like somewhere I could go to enjoy a pint and a fag. In the 21st Century, is it really too hard to work out that dictating matters never works and, results are ALWAYS better with sensible co-operation and compromise?

Liz, short, sweet, and spot-on!

Danny - it's a perfect example of democracy at work? The vast majority benefit from a law that, at worst, penalises a few people for a few minutes each day (and remember, it only penalises people through their own choice - if you don't want to stand in the rain, for example, then don't have a fag until you're going to be outside anyway)! So your "gullible few" comment, in reality, applies to the smokers, not everyone else...

Steve W - There's not a pub or club in the UK that couldn't glass-partition an area without breaking the bank. Since the 1960's social clubs have used glass-partitions to keep the bar servery area sectioned off to allow children into the drinking area. I'll give you 10 good reasons why I can GUARANTEE an amendment to the smoking ban will happen in around 2 years time, but you'll have to wait for a future blog. What's more I also guarantee that within 12 months of it's introduction you will have risen above your present bias and will be happily handing out the ashtrays in your own, newly-converted smoking room.

is it worth destroying thousands of pubs, clubs and jobs just to keep the gullible few happy? all the government had to do is allow smokers and the like minded to have seperate pubs and venues seperate from those who dislike smoking then everyone would have been ok, but instead they just went and treated everyone like robots and acted like dictators and demanded everyone obey or get punished, this dont sound like democracy to me.

Stable Door. Bolted horse.

Anon is correct; as I've said many times on here, if the ban were relaxed to allow seperate areas it would cause more problems than it solves. Why do I say this? Well, the only pubs suffering at the moment (as a direct result of the ban - I'm not talking about all the other issues!) are those that either have no facility for a smoking area or are poorly managed (or a combination of the two). Allowing seperate smoking rooms wouldn't fix this problem, it would simply transfer the issue to those pubs that have no facility for a separate area, can't afford any alterations and/or are badly managed! The government will NEVER allow a relaxation of the ban like this because it would be the thin end of a very long wedge - no sooner would pubs and clubs be allowed smoking then everyone else would be jumping on the bandwagon and claiming relaxation rights for their industries.

Look - it's just not going to happen! The logistics of seperate rooms / areas would be impossible. My staff are happier that they are not working in a smoke filled atmosphere, customers on the whole like the fact they don't go home stinking and the clock is NOT going to be turned back!

i hear the argument for refom and support it but having a separate smoking room would cause m,ore problems to pubs and clubs that could not have one!!! this campaign needs to sort out its policies

This is a true statement, and i am a supporter of freedom of choice, but it seems like this government is more intersted in phoney figures ind lies from groups like ASH than what the majority of people want and what they see as fair, "seperate smoking rooms or venues", so at the next election i am voting for a party that want to listen to the people of this country "UKIP".