Hamish Champ: Smoking ban anniversaries will go on. And on. And on.

Dear Colin you're reading way more into this than there is. I had half my pub non smoking from the day I opened in 1995. I'm insulting no one and have no Nu labour utopia leanings whatsover.

Chris, Smokers have the same choice the n/s had before the ban. It was not a problem then, so why should it be a problem now. Go to smokey pub or stay at home! Go to n/s pub or stay at home! Simples!!!!

Here is an interesting thought for any government hoping for re-election. The number of smokers in the UK is greater than the number that voted Labour at the last election.

John, You were not restricted to what pub you could drink in, you chose to do that, just as smokers alike chose not to, see the simple word in there? Choice. Not that difficult is it? now smokers ARE restricted, and seem to be choosing the right to stay at home with their cut price tesco ale.

John, it might have been have been a free vote, but the facts are thus : Torie MP's voted against a smoking ban in pubs by 54% to 46%, and against a smoking ban in private clubes by 73% to 27%. Labour MP's voted in favour of a smoking ban in pubs by 91% to 9%, and in favour of a smoking ban in private clubes 84% to 16%. You sit there wondering why people blame Nu Labour for the blanket smoking ban, but it was LABOUR's manifesto pledge that was broken, nothing to do with the Tories. It's not rocket science my friend....

Not quite sure why you are blaming Labour for the smoking ban? As I recall it was a free vote by democratically elected MP’s Who voted as his constituent wanted!

Wow, 3 pubs in a five mile radious! How fantastic! I just dont see why they brought in the Smoking ban? Just a few points! How do we get there? What happens if our friends drink in another pub? Why should N/S be restricted to what pubs they can drink in?

You do realise that the maximum fine for possession of your "several roll-ups of a, er, ‘tobacco-free’ nature" is oddly enough the same as commiting the heinous offence of letting (or to be more precise not actively preventing- ) someone smoking in your place of business. No, I can't see the smoking ban being repealed anytime soon, just as I wouldn't have seen the ban in Bavaria being effectively repealed. But wait, their trade federation actually opposed the ban, and following the kicking that the governing party got in the last elections, suddenly it's been so well modified as to have been effectively repealed. So, there's definitely no hope of getting it repealed or amended over here...

What Mark conveniently forgets to mention when he insults the very people who were the backbone of our trade,smokers,is that smokers were not to blame for the smelly smokey atmosphere in pubs,he was i was we all were to blame ,the trade spent next to nowt on air filtration ,spent even less on decoration ,because of greed,but i unlike Mark,had the bottle 7 years ago to make my lounge smoke free and spent money on extractors,which over night changed this place from a smog fill pub where you were lucky if you could see anybody at the other end of the room,strange thing is we were packed out most days before the changes,non smokers never to me complained about smoke ,i take great exception to Mark insulting the very people who paid for my new cars i have had since being here [3] the very people who paid my two mortgages,you Mark might buy in to nu labours Utopia ,but we up here don't [NE]

"I got a drilling in my ear from someone who knows nothing about pubs, OTHER THAN HE DRINKS IN THEM" - Mark. This is where the trade is going wrong,wrong,wrong. There should be nothing more important to the trade than attracting people to use pubs. So if, there is a market for the sharp light and the tinny acoustics of smokefree pubs - supply that market. If there is a market for the muffled light and muffled acoustics of smoking pubs - supply that market. If the trade continues to dismiss the wishes of customers on the grounds that they only drink in them, the trade can only expect to accelerate its self harm. It is almost as if the trade is judging what people want, by what the trade thinks they SHOULD want and not what they DO want. So, Mark, you think "Smoke filled interiors are disgusting"? I don't think they are at all disgusting, I think they are friendly and warm. They make me want to spend my money in them. I think they are a sign of country that values choice and respect for peoples choices. Prior, to the smoking ban I avoided smokefree pubs and smokefree areas of pubs but I did respect the fact that people wanted to use them. These places were not my cup of tea before the smoking ban and they won't be after the smoking ban is amended. I don't agree that "The smoking ban is just part of society maturing". I think that the smoking ban is a gross act of cultural vandalism that was promoted by a section of people that could not give two hoots about any harm it would cause to pubs and pub culture. I think it is a sign of the devolution of the mature concept of freedom of choice. Its a step backwards, and will require correction. A correction that will help the trade get bums on seats. No doubt about it.

Poetry Hamish. Well done. Last night in Portobello Gold, at the opening of Mike Bell's excellent photographic show of photos from his teenage years in the 'States, I got a drilling in my ear from someone who knows nothing about pubs, other than he drinks in them, making him an expert along the lines of: 'the smoking ban's killed everything good in Britain, it's made everyone depressed and the recession worse than it would have been, I'm off to Thailand to get away from the political mess of this country.' Drone drone drone. I AM a smoker and in favour of the smoking ban and, having worked front of house and seen the effects of smoke on interiors for the best part of thirty years, always have been pro a ban. Smoke filled interiors are disgusting. If I could have afforded the risk of making 'my' pub (it belongs to RBS) non smoking unilaterally ten years ago I would have done. Smoky bars are repellent to most people who are non smokers and many who ARE smokers. The interior decor stinks and is inclined to have all surfaces coated and tainted by sticky amber yellow tar. Gross! Smokers are addicted to smoking, presumably this is some are so outraged about the loss of personal freedom and spitefully vociferous in their protesting the ban. Anything to help addicts reduce cut down smoking is useful because hard core smokers are never going to reduce it themselves without proscription. The smoking ban is just part of society maturing, some people behave as if it's the beginning of the end of the world. They ought to get more important priorities in their lives and focus on such things as ending racism and intolerance or looking at ways to stabilise climate change or to reduce international and even local poverty. Fire away irritated smokers.

Labour have betrayed the very people that they have relied on in every election they have had, people who voted ,like me blindly because we thought wrongly that they were the party of the working class,how wrong can one be ,but do labour give a toss ,they are too busy filling their boots to care, roll on election day,they have systematically dismantled every thing that made this country a good place to live ,now we are nothing but a dictatorship, every thing English has been destroyed just so they can fill their boots in Europe ,Tony Blair and brown ,and the rest of the rabble should be tried for treason,

Just an observation Hamish, but every time a blog is posted on here about the smoking ban it provokes a torrent of comments from disgruntled publicans and customers, whilst every blog which addresses other issues is pretty much ignored. Also what's wrong with registering a protest vote with UKIP? At present it's the only way that those opposed to a blanket smoking ban can register their views in the ballot box. Certainly the results of the recent european elections should speak for themselves. If David Cameron has any political nouse at all (which is debatable I grant you), then he will realise that he ignores UKIP's policies at his peril ...

Matthew - I'm a club-babe. I'm 42 now and have been involved in the club scene 'up-north' since I was 2. Believe you me, the smoking ban has 'killed' my thriving club. We have 5 rooms. Why can't one be for smoking or why can't our members vote on our own smoking policy, as we've always done? Non-smokers have left with their smoking companions after signing the petition against the ban. Members, committee and staff at my club wanted to ensure that everyone was catered for (which was promised in a manifesto afterall) - they were back-stabbed. BTW - the club I frequent is a Labour club. I've been frequenting for 40 years. I know the die-hard labour supporters, whether they speak in a by-gone language or not! Not many at my labour club will vote labour anymore - 3 weeks after the ban was implemented they said that, and they have delivered.

Steve W: You say you cannot see an outdoor smoking ban being "realistically considered" by the current government. Sir Liam Donaldson, the health minister who wrote the indoor smoking legislation, is on record as saying he wants to extend the indoor ban to all outdoor public areas, such aa pub gardens, to "protect families from SHS". So not only is it being "realistically considered" but it's the on record desire of the minister in charge of implementing "health" legislation in the UK. This is seperate from the same EU directive issued recently proposing the same outdoor ban. You also say you are for the ban because before there was no "choice". I presume you mean for non-smokers. But in Wimbledon, pre-ban there were 3 non-smoking pubs within a 5 mile radius so there was a choice for both smokers and non-smokers. It is only now, with a draconian indoor smoking ban with no exemptions, that there is no choice whatsoever. And if Sir Liam Donaldson has his way, not even the choice to sit/stand outside and smoke either. Oh and he also is on record as saying to counter binge drinking. certain "restrictions" may be necessary soon. When you agree to let and actively support the government dictating how you run your business once Steve W, you think they are going to stop with just an indoor smoking ban, when there is binge drinking and obesity to fight too? And all those smokers polluting poor families in your pub garden? It's a slippery slope, and those who still support the complete indoor ban with no exemptions, will have nobody else to blame when we all slide right down it.

Nothing is for ever, only death. Smoking bans have come and gone for centuries and so will this one, even if its only amendments.

Steve, I did read it as one or two percent. However, I should have written it with the percentage, in my post, for clarity. Have fun at your festival!

Well, I'm off to the 'NEWT' Beer Festival in the SW now for an extremely rare couple of days off (whilst my partner watches the 'fort') and I'm very much looking forward to enjoying a good chat with all the smokers outside AND enjoying a smoke-free atmosphere in the (absolutely packed) beer tent and band marque!! Well done to the government for alowing many people much more enjoyment at things such as this...!

Pete - let me give you the first line from the CIU's website: "In fact, there are over 2,400 clubs across the country affiliated to this over-arching institute of the club movement though there were many more at the peak of club popularity in the early 1970s". Notice that important comment - the were MANY MORE at the peak in the 1970s. I suppose the THOUSANDS that closed between then and 2007 were also smoking related were they? And surveys on a contentious issue such as this are notorious for being massively skewed towards those with an axe to grind, as they're much much more likely to respond than those who aren't that bothered one way or the other...

Fredrik - nice to see that you're still not reading or undestanding posts correctly! He said he spoke to a large number - the one or two was a percentage figure on business levels!

Pete - but what you continually fail to see is that this 'state interference' has widespread support - in the same way that 'state interference' to provide national health care has widespread support! Few people would doubt there are more pubs closing now, what we doubt is that it's all down to the ban, and that's where you're so wrong. Read the comments of "Nick" a few posts down - a multiple operator with land-locked pubs whose business is growing - there are many, many pub operators who have been able to shrug off the ban as a simple inconvenience precisely because they see it as that and get on with more important things that allow their businesses to grow. I'll always stand by my view that a lot of the licensees who are really struggling are doing so because of their own actions (or inactions). This invites all of the accusations you regularly throw at me and others (I'm alright Jack, selfish, doesn't care about pubs, etc. etc) but, even though they're incorrect, it doesn't prevent the fact that I'm right. Just admit that you're simply personally upset you can't smoke whilst drinking inside a pub anymore and it has little to do with your dedication to the industry or fear of dissolvement of your personal rights.

Simon - I would be totally against a ban on smoking outside. My support for the current ban is only because it protects those who don't wish to smoke (from all the bad affects, not just SHS) where they didn't have a choice before the ban. I have absolutely no problem with people deciding to smoke. On the 'proposed' outside ban - this is little more than one of thousands of proposals that barely ever get farther than the proposers mouth - I can't see this ever, realistically, even being considered seriously in UK government.

Matthew Moggridge - I'm not surprised you disagree with the CIU. Their recently survey of more than 2300 Clubs, verified by Dr Ruth Cherrington of Warwick University, found that 98% of clubs say the smoking ban had "definitely" had a detrimental effect on their club. 98% stated the ban was not implemented fairly. 98% believed there should have been freedom of choice. 98% of clubs had the facility for a separate smoking room. 81% stated that they did not trust this government anymore. Here in the Midlands clubs are being wiped off the map, including the oldest one in the UK which closed recently in Coventry.

"Ha ha Hamish. Sayeth the words 'smoking ban' and they will come!" - Michael Bernard Smith. Michael, It's a good thing that Hamish blogs on this topic. Even, If he blogs against the issue of amendment. It keep the issue alive. The health lobby want to move on to other interventions into the trade. They want to bury the issue and down play the damage it has caused. If the smoking issue is put back on the agenda, this is bad news for the health lobby. So Hamish,Pete, more of the same please!

"One or two have even said their business has improved since the ban" - Matthew. Am I hearing this right? After two years, of this smoking ban, this gross act of cultural vandelism, that has sent thousands of pubs and clubs under. Put tens of thousands of bar staff on the rock and roll. Only "one" or "two" have said there business have actually improved. I repeat, the best the editor of Club Mirror magazine can say is only "one" or "two" have improved. Astonishing. One or two is it?!? Matthew, put your rose tinted glasses away. I have no confidence that the trade even wants to fight the health lobby. Let alone equipped to fight the health lobby. I don't think that sections of the trade are even sober enough to understand whats happening to them. At the moment, the health lobby is to the trade, as is a pike swimming in a pool of minnows. The trades collective ovine compliance makes victory certain. I am astonished.

re outdoor smoking bans, parts of California has had this in place for years and the state hasn't fallen into the Pacific yet.

Hamish, you're right. That's exactly what I think and, as editor of Club Mirror magazine, I've spoken to a large number of club managers and they, by and large, feel the same way, ie, that the smoking ban has had little effect on their business, some reporting a one or two per cent drop but others saying it has made no difference. One or two have even said their business has improved since the ban. The CIU, of course, will tell you a different story: that clubs are closing left, right and centre because of the ban, but then the CIU tends to adopt a kind of 'one out, all out' approach to the subject. I agree with you, that pubs and clubs are far better environmentally without cigarettes and I can't see any way that any Government, Labour, Liberal or Conservative, will reverse the ban. This, of course, has to be welcomed as going to the pub or club used to mean returning home smelling like a bonfire. Not any more. In clubland, if the club is well managed and forward-thinking, it will survive. I believe that clubs have more to offer than pubs, not only cheaper drinks but more going on in terms of sports and entertainments. In other words, there are more reasons to visit a club than a pub. They're also far safer as people can't simply walk in off the streets, as they can with pubs. I'll shut-up now, but yes, pubs and clubs that whinge about the smoking ban are wasting their time, the ban won't be reversed. Get over it, I say.

Steve W - You weren't here 2 years ago, but people like you were smugly rubbishing my predictions of today's pub losses. However I was right all along. If we "just get on with it" then I doubt this forum will still be here in 7 years time. As pub numbers plummet The Publican magazine itself will suffer a shrinking market and will probably amalgamate with The Caterer which already covers foody pubs. When the property market picks up in 12 months time pubs will be worth far more to property developers. Cash-strapped Pubcos will be frantically flogging off their portfolios and the feeding frenzy will begin in earnest. So in 7 years time we'll all be gone along with 25,000+ pubs. Personally I believe all this can still be avoided. You do have a CHOICE - rally against State interference or bury your head in the sand.

Ha ha Hamish. Sayeth the words 'smoking ban' and they will come!

hamish and Steve W. As the two most visible of the indoor smoking ban proponents on here, perhaps you could tell us whether you will support the now much publicized desire of the government health minister and EU to ban smoking in pub gardens/outside areas too? Simply put, I am trying to understand exactly where your bottom line is on restricting smoking in pubs, so if the government did introduce such a outside ban in pubs, would you support it or fight it?

Pete/Fred'....I am far from defeatist I can assure you. What you have failed to address (Pete) is that your solution of separate rooms, while no doubt helping your cause will, without doubt create a two tier system that will condemn single bar operations to a certain fate. Rather than save pubs, your solution exacerbates the problem and shuts more, and some of our most traditional houses at that. You singularly fail to comment on this. You ask what pubs should do better! Simple, become better retailers at what their intended purpose is, selling food and beverages, after all that is the pub raison d'etre isn't it. As one who has a small estate we have adopted this approach and it serves us well. How often do I see pubs where the landlord bemoans the smoking ban where they have not even looked at what they actually sell, what they do with their establishment to promote their business, sadly they would rather live in a blame culture which I sincerely hope isn't adopting the lazy option but I fear in some cases is (though I am sure not in all). But the issue is one that will not change, regardless of how much we try to change it. We can bang on about choice all we like, but smokers are in the minority and no political party with any chance of election is ever going to push for repeal. Be realistic and work to create a better pub by using all that energy in a more constructive manner because it will be more fruitful than flogging a dead horse. I feel this is Hamish's point and it is one I wholly subscribe too. My venues are small landlocked often and exactly the type of venue the smoking ban was meant to affect most...we have seen growth not death because we have concentrated our minds and moved forward. We all have that option, I wish that we all would take it as this is what will save your pubs!

Steve, the most salient point made yet was our last one though I don't think you know you made it."arguing against things beyond our control" In a free democratic society these things should not be beyond our control in the first place and if the law passed by OUR government is unjust or wrong then we SHOULD spend more time arguing against them before that right is denied us. Ken Nason

UK Pub closures [British Beer and Pub Association figures] 2005: 102 2006: 216 2007: 1,409

Pete - could you do us all a big favour and research and publish the figures for the UK pub population across, say, the last 200 years, in, say, 5 year intervals? I'm sure that will prove 'beyond doubt' that up until July 2007 the UK pub industry has been in continuous growth (or, at worst, stayed level) and all this only stopped when the smoking ban came in? Or maybe it will simply show us absolutely nothing except that the industry is constantly changing? Let me offer two statistics, directly from the BBPA handbook of industry statistics: "For the first time since 1998, UK alcohol consumption per head has dipped, by 2.1%". Support for your smoking ban claims? Hardly, this was written in 2006! How about another fact from 2006 (well before even a perceived threat of the ban) - "The steady shift away from 'on-trade' sales has continued, with 41% of Britain's beer now bought in shops and supermarkets. In 2000, the figure was 33% and in 1998, 30%". IE. across 8 years BEFORE the ban, we lost 11% of ALL alcohol sales to the off-trade. That's a massive decline and nothing to do with smokers, but I'll bet my life that if the ban had been implemented in 2005, Pete would have been using these statistics as 'absolute proof' of the 'devastating effect of the ban'. He knows no more about the state of the industry in 2016 than anyone else - our traditional customers have gone or have been disappearing for years and it has little to do with smoking, it's to do with social change. Come back to this forum in 7 years time and see just how devastated the industry is - or maybe it will be booming again and all this talk of smoking ban will be long forgotten - or maybe it will be struggling through the next big issue of the day - nobody knows, but I do wish we'd just get on with working through it rather than arguing against things beyond our control. We do still have CHOICE - Adapt & survive or whine & die, it's up to you all...

Nick - By this time next year we'll have lost 10% of the pubs we had before the ban. By the end of 2012 a QUARTER of our pubs will have gone, reaching the 50% mark early in 2016. If defeatists like you get their way that will happen, make no bones about it. But not while there's breath in my body. What exactly is it you believe "pubs do well" in this era of the New Opportunity? And why has it proved so desperately unpopular?

Nick, I believe that in more advanced countries than our own, that small bars can choose to hang a no smoking sign on the door or not. If a bar does not hang a no smoking sign on the door, then it's a bit rum to walk into them and describe the customers in those bars as narrow minded, polluting and selfish. There is no reason for there to be as many smokefree pubs/bars as the market demands. So long as the law does not prohibit the supply smoking venues, I really don't see how anyone can complain. If anything it is the smaller bars and pubs that can most easily meet the demands of smoking preferences of the local population (IE get the optimum footfall).

Pete Robinson, please stop banging on about the issue of separate smoking rooms. This is precisely the approach that will shut more pubs then you can shake your nicotine laden cancer stick at! It will condemn all our traditional single bar town centre venues to the annals of history purely because a few narrow minded individuals want to pollute the air of the majority for their own selfish reasons (and I say that as a smoker myself). The ban will never be repealed and I applaud Hamish for having tho nous to realise this. Concentrate your minds at doing what pubs do well please because the amount of energy being wasted on backing the one trick pony that has not a snowball in hells chance of winning the race shows a level of lacking in common sense that amazes me.

No idea why Hamish thinks the ban won't be ammended. I agree there is little political capital on the surface in ammending it, as 75% of the UK population don't smoke. But throughout the world that statistic of around 75% being non-smokers is true and outright smoking bans have been ammended in many other places. Germany and Holland in Europe, and many US states and cities this year alone, for instance North Carolina and Atlantic city. So then the question becomes why not the UK? Probably because most importantly the publican trade isn't campaigning for it, unlike in germany, holland, and the US examples. But it's also because here in Britian, unlike the above examples, non-smokers seem to be unable to make the oubvious connection between supporting an outright ban , and slowly but surely eroding personal freedom for others. So in a couple of years Hamish when you have to take your glastonbury joint outside trhe main gate to enjoy it, serve your wine in designated glass sizes, remove the salt from your pork pies, and whatever else the government implements to control smoking, drinking and obesity, maybe then you'll get it. But I won't hold my breath. The simple answer is of course freedom of choice for the landlord to decide his/her own smoking/non-smoking/wine glass size/pork pie salt content policy. Simple, but apparently here in the UK, way to complicated for most to understand once you take away one freedom, it's always easier to take the rest away. Yes Hamish, if the EU have their way and ban outside smoking, your glastonbury joint goes next. Happy about that?

Ms Granger - when were children ever allowed in a proper pub? We are not talking about pretend restaurants here (which most pubs are turing into) - we are talking about pubs. Did you ever frequent them regularly by any chance? I would think not if you have children accompanying you! I certainly wouldn't take my children to wet-led pubs on a regular basis. I don't know anyone else who would either. They are adult venues.

if the torys dont give pubs and clubs the choice over the smoking ban then people will vote for the smaller partys, like ukip,bnp,english democrats, because folk dont like being to what to do and how to live there lives it should be up to the licensee and club owners.

No, Ms Granger. I don't smoke at home, or at the pub. I don't smoke. But I'm more of a 'smoker' than you'll ever be. You come across as an addict, yet blaming others for harming children, yours included presumably. I'll bet you smell more like as ashtray than I do. You must have heard about 3rd hand smoke that some think presents a danger to children. I'd try and quit if I were you.

Children should NOT be allowed in pubs at all. Most pubs are open until midnight or later..So obviously are places for adults only !! Pubs are for drinking. Children are not allowed to drink, so why should they be allowed in pubs ? Adults who take children in pubs and drink alcohol are totally irresponsible. So a responsible parent should only have soft drinks. There are plenty of places to take children for a meal and a soft drink. So why the hell do people want to take children into adult venues such as pubs? Probably just to keep up the pretense that they are earning plenty of money for the pubs and that smokers should never be allowed to smoke in a pub. If there were children in a pub, most people that want to go for a drink would walk straight out. Very selfish parents.

Ms Grager, i think you'll find some people wont disagree with JO, Kids should be taken to wacky warehouses and kept out of the way of people who go to the pub to escape the kids for a few hours, Kids in pubs isnt good, after all i dont drink my pints in their ball pool. The best notice i ever saw in a pub - "This is a establisment that accepts children, not a playground that caters for adults" - says it all really.

Ms Granger, When my children get to big for the chimney, I feed them to the crocodile and then the current Mrs Eich will make me some more. How is where you stand in your house and what your kids smell like is even remotely to do with Hamish's blog on smoking in pubs is beyond me.

Whilst I do not doubt that a number of on trade outlets/pubs have been adversely affected by the smoking ban, surely there is a bigger demographic issue that is driving the increasing closure of pubs? Think back 10-20 years ago to your pub. Each night 9and most every night) the same regulars would come in and drink 2-3 pints every night. The majority of these regulars were male, middle-aged and lived locally. As these customers have aged and dwindled, have younger 'regulars' begun to drink in this way to replace them? In the majority of cases the answer is no. The way the majority of people use pubs/spend their leisure time has changed, and, as a consequence the number of pubs which were thriving business 20 years ago are now no longer viable given this change in consumption habits. So the current crop of pub closures may have been exacerbated by the smoking ban and the 'credit crunch' but there is also a bigger underlying issue re: changing attitudes to leisure and drinking. The issue is complex and multi-layered and although a reversal of the smoking ban may in some cases 'save' some pubs, this is only one of the issues facing the trade.

Err Excuse me JO isnt the point trying to make pubs a family friendly place...!! i enjoy spending time with my children and they like going to a pub to play in the garden etc. And talking about Xrated movies, thats a slight difference dont you think!! Pubs are not purely for adults and i think many people will disagree with you there. Jo, i think your missing the point of this blog, try reading it again.

Ms Granger This is about PUBS. Keep your kids out of adult places is the answer isn't it. You wouldn't take them to see an xrated porn film and then complain that there were nude scenes. Pubs are for adult drinkers and smokers. Restaurants are for eating in and there are plenty of places that cater for obnoxious kids.

Ms Granger 6 out of 7 studies say there is no harm from passive smoke. The rest do not reach a risk anywhere near that like we take for granted daily. Do you use a mobile phone near your children, or let them use one? Well the risk of cancer from these is 9 times greater than passive smoke has ever been assessed. Also the largest study ever done, put SHS as having a protective effect on children. Do you believe that study? Anyway any amendment would involve air quality, rendering smoke irrelevant. Hamish, you are just courting attention, otherwise you blog about Harleys in your car park or something else dull and unimportant, like your weekend getting stoned.

Well if your happy with your children inhaling smoke and smelling of an ashtray that’s great! but I certainly don't. I put my children’s health first and I think you should all stop being so self absorbed and get on with it! As I have said before I am a smoker, and I have no problem going outside, and I do at home. Question do you smoke in your home??

"It's incredible how you all always seem to ignore the three quarters of the population who don't smoke..." - Steve. I don't 75% of the population Ok, Steve, if the majority of people smoked, what would your arguments be against a law that said enclosed public spaces could not be smokefree or have smokefree areas, including pubs. Would it be "your a minority - so tough"? Even, if that meant the loss of thousands of jobs? Because I would be perfectly happy if there were as many smokefree pubs as the market demands. But, there should not be legal impediment to smoking ones, there should be as many as the minority of people who smoke can supply with their minority share of cash. So you see, I don't ignore the majority. I am advocating inclusion , not exclusion.

Hamish - he he he, I hate to say I told you so (but I think you probably posted this story on purpose)...!

Well said John and Ms Granger. Fredrik - how about going inside and asking all the none-smokers if they prefer smokers to be outside or in. It's incredible how you all always seem to ignore the three quarters of the population who don't smoke...

Well said Hamish Champ, you sound like a typical gullible robotic minded twit, just because YOU love dictatorship that dont mean your government unjust smoking ban cant be amended, maybe when the other political parties wake and see the damage this ban have done to pubs, clubs, jobs, society and freedom one of them might listen to the will of the people, if not the fight for freedom of choice will go on.

Ms Granger - I agree that some pub-going smokers don't seem to be bothered. But they will be when outdoor smoking in public paces is outlawed. This campaign has already started - passive acceptance of the current ban will make make their job so much easier. You, Hamish and the rest of the kowtowers need to remove the blinkers before it's too late.

"Smokers I see out side a pub SMOKING happily, don't look at all bothered"- Ms Granger. Ms Granger, Next time you are out on the tiles, go up to those customers and ask them if they would prefer to smoke inside or not. Also, go inside and ask people if they would prefer drink outside. Catering for preferences is an essential aspect of the hospitality industry.

*Terry* well you know one now!! As I have said before I do not find it an issue to stand outside and have a cig and I think you are "100%" incorrect to say that all smokers agree with you, maybe on your planet they do, but on Earth I can assure you the amount of Smokers I see out side a pub SMOKING happily, don't look at all bothered!

I have been to pubs since the ban – usually as part of some unavoidable social duty. But since the ban, as a smoker, I've invariably found the experience deeply unpleasant - frustrating, humiliating or physically uncomfortable. Sometimes all three at once. So, pray tell, oh Wise One – how, precisely, is anyone going succeed in the task of making any pub "a better place" for this particular member of the "smoking dispossessed" whilst at the same time adhering to their legal obligation to provide an environment which is – er, well – frustrating, humiliating and inclined to induce feelings of mild nausea, stomach cramps and copious sweating? I personally think you're asking a bit too much. And anyway, aren't pubs all now full to bursting with all those non-smokers who were too terrified to step over the threshold before? Surely you don't need us lot any more. Or do you?

Yes I am an anti-smoker! And I really hope the ban will not Ben get revised! Firstly, I don’t care if any secondary smoke is bad for you or not, but I should have the right to go to any establishment that has public access and not be subjected to smoke! I have never seen any proof to say that SHS is safe! Even if I had, I still don’t want to sit in a Smokey room, and I certainly don’t want to go home smelling like an ash tray! Separate rooms would have been a answer 10 yrs ago on a voluntary basis, but a compromise was not acceptable then, when everything was in favour of the smoker, so why should we compromise now! It would never work anyway, what happens when you are in a group of 5, 2 smoke and 3 don’t. Where would you end up drinking? Yes in the smoking room! If smoke is 98% water, WTF is the other 2% made up of? David, Drunk people/drivers are a threat and a danger to other members of the public. THIS IS WHY IT IS AGAINST THE LAW LIKE SMOKING IS!! Has the industry learnt anything? There is talk of making outside areas smoke free. Why not take Hamish advice and be proactive now and split outside areas, smoking and N/S before you are forced too! In July 07 smoking was allowed in every bar, and in every room up until the last bell! Anyone with the passion for their business would have been proactive and provided N/S areas 18 months prior to July 07. 18 months of new customers would have been a big help!

Oh,I forgot,all you have to do is step outside the public area(the main Gate)have your,e smoke and come back in....it really is that easy...

The EU is already considering new designations of "public places"to include places"places where the public gather" such as Glastonbury....so this year,s "herbs"may be your last....but Hey!....don,t whine about it,accept it and move on....Next year,welcome to our world!

Terry, it's not actually true that all smokers hate the ban. Many see it as an aid to quitting. Fair enough, I hear some of you say...Trouble is, 40 years of anti smoking propaganda and lies has convinced them that smoking will kill them, period. And, more recently, that they are taking non smokers down with them. Indeed, some particularly zealous antis believe they deserve to die if they refuse to quit. Including those who really should know better - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z71Vv6QAmiw If, as you claim Hamish, you're not anti smoking, you should accept that the ban is more than an inconvenience and that we should all move on and live with it. This whole issue is getting out of control. BTW, you may have heard rumours that the EU is pushing to ban smoking at all OUTDOOR public events, including Glastonbury. Rock n' bloody Roll....

Chump would be a more suitable name Hamish. Come to where I live and see whats happening to the pubs. On politicians I would agree its not worth going to the polls and voting as they are all the same none of them now believe in personal choice or freedom lets face it what did they do ban the use of a legal product on private property, A legal product that they are quite happy to sell and make billions in tax out of it but removed the right of publicans to allow the use of this legal product on their private premises - now thats what I call double standards. Have the government lost any money no, whilst the pubs are closing in there thousands.

Hamish - you say "Choose another battle, like how to get your smoking customers back into your pub." I wouldn't even bother trying. The majority of the smoking customers and their friends will not return to the pubs unless they are accommodated in a humane manner. A blanket ban cannot provide this, so they will not return on a regular basis, whatever the landlord tries.

There is also the argument that even if the ban was repealed, there are so many smokers who have now kicked the 'habit' of going to pubs that they might never return. I know I won't. It opened my eyes to how very expensive pub beer is. Many smoker could be lost for good, and the ones to blame are the trade bodies who sat by and allowed themselves to be trampled over with vague threats of litigation from their staff. Now they have their own battle to face as the anti everything brigade have turned their guns on alcohol as pickings are slim in anti-smoking now. I won't shed a tear.

Chump, does someone actually pay you to create this drivel, or do you own this rag. Your attempts do not even bear comment - they are so benign. Tosser!

I'd love to meet one of these mysterious smokers in favor of the smoking ban. I'm sure that they are about as common as the non-smokers who were going to start filling up the pubs when the smoking ban went into effect. As for whether the 'smoking ban anniversaries will go on and on and on'...well, undoubtedly someone in Germany was clucking similarly a bit over a year ago, and look what happened there, and now in the Netherlands as well. Then again, whatwith the UK being the world's foremost PC-nanny-state in the world (even more than the US, if such a thing can be believed), perhaps you're right after all.

Hamish Haw Haw speaks out again - Champ of the Nazi element in degraded Britain BUT your words are like puffs of smoke that will disappear in the breeze before you know it... "Yu vil nefer vin - yu are vasetink yuer time. Ze 4th reich ist sehr gut unt unbeatible" I'm sure that some Brits believed the original Lord Haw Haw in 1940's but they were the weak element. The original nazis lost remember - despite their bluster and self indulgent rhetoric! Every attempt to prohibit anything in civilised history has failed. (dont insult anyone's intelligence by claiming the anti-smoking campaign is not prohibition by stealth.) The new anti-smoking, anti freedom nazi party will fail too Mark these words well!!

I don't know one single smoker who wants to stand outside a pub for a smoke. I don't know anyone who knows one single smoker that wants to be humiliated in this manner. This spiteful ban is 100% hated by all smokers and any 'polls' or opinions that state otherwise are deluded. Smokers are not criminals and yet are treated as such. Pigs are afforded better 'shelters'. At least pigs have to by law have shelters that are 95% enclosed !!

Hamish how I wish you were a Champ, like your name sake Hamish (the peoples champ) Howett. Blakpool.

Harley Rider - you say, "funny thing is tobacco smoke is 98% WATER VAPOR...". Hmmm, why didn't we ever realise this, so it MUST be safe? An atomic bomb is 99% metal, now what was all that fuss about the Cold War for... :o)

Editor's comment HarleyRider? You want to get your legs over a Triumnph mate! Hamish Aye mate, I have me a 650 bonnie.......nice ride

Hamish, What have you been smoking? The very "popular" Clause 28 was quietly dropped as soon as a new government took power. Deep cuts in public spending are going to have to be made and "preventative medicine" (ie prohibitionists) will be the first for the chop. Because whats the point in treating millions of healthy people when they will need treating sooner or later anyway (ie when they get sick and eventually die)? This will be good news for Pubs because a large amount of prohibitionist intervention is paid for with public money. These people will hopefully be joining the ranks of the unemployed and let's face they didn't care about jobs in the trade. Fair enough really.

Blimey Hamish, you do like to invite comments with your blogs, you will surely get a berating from our smoking friends for this one! You are, of course, correct in your comments (I assume when you talk of over-turning the ban, you are referring to amendments as well, such as allowing choice). Good luck, you'll need it...

I wouldnt be so hasty to say the ban wont be repealed.Every smoking ban in history has been repealed.There is a big push for a total repeal of the ban right now.This movement gains ground day by day.....The public is onto you guys in smoke free and your nazi tactics hitler would be proud of... After all second hand smoke doesnt harm anyone and you know it.........Even the united states OCCUPATIONAL AND SAFETY OSHA has stated that shs/ets doesnt harm people. They did 40 years of air quality testing...........funny thing is tobacco smoke is 98% WATER VAPOR.....

Hamish perhaps feels that spoken with enough conviction the idea that smoking bans will never be repealed will become reality. Missing from all the rhetoric is the reality that there is no record of secondary smoke being indisputably the cause of anybody's death. 'Evidence' is always the anti-smokers' weakest point. And does he really believe that 6 pubs a day would be saved just by their licensees being more accommodating to customers?

Hamish, a wonderful piece with a long-overdue return to common sense. Those who bang on and on and on about the loss of me 'rights', the 'international conspiracy', the 'state control', the 'social engineeering' blah, blah really do need to find another cause for martyrdom. No government will revoke the ban, nor will they modify it to allow smoking in any indoor public place. Whilst we're on the subject of folks being under the illusion that a change of government will change smoking legislation, let's be aware that a change of government will change nothing at all, absolutely nothing !!

I agree, a change of government will probably make little difference although any move away from the nanny agenda would be welcomed by most voters. The issue isn't really about governments - it's about those who influence government policy (and those who pay them to do so). The case for the smoking ban was based on studies cherry picked by anti tobacco organizations, who by definition cannot be impartial. How can you not grasp this fact? Just because there is a ban doesn't mean that it's based on sound evidence. They're applying similar tactics to demormalise alcohol now. Are we going to see acceptance of this by you and your colleagues? Is alcohol dangerous, Hamish? Do you accept that causes ill health or harm to non drinkers? To be assaulted or killed by a drunk is a real threat, not merely a risk calculated by dodgy statistical analysis. Real evidence will make their job so much easier.

I agree with Pete. Few want the ban overturned, but many want to see exemptions. There are now alcohol restrictions and anti-alcohol groups are pushing for more and more, just like the anti-smoking groups did.

Spoken like a true Londoner Hamish. You wanna try exploring 'the badlands' north of Watford a little more often. Oxfordshire for example, where Morse would be hard pressed to find his lunchtime pint nowadays. I just wish some folk would listen. NOBODY is demanding a repeal of the ban. It won't be scrapped, rolled back, or rescinded - agreed. But an amendment to allow publicans THE CHOICE of separate smoking rooms would keep everyone happy and could save over 25,000 pubs long term. And possibly Hamish even your job!