If the smoking ban "has worked" I'm the Queen of Sheba
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 14:40 The smoking ban has worked, or so the prime minister, a former (?) smoker, keeps telling us.
So he will be heartened by a report in the Oxford Mail that reveals that "Not one person has been fined in Oxford for flouting the ban on smoking in pubs in almost five years since it came into force."
The implication is that the smoking ban has been a huge success and I expect there will be more stories like this as we approach the fifth anniversary of the ban in England on July 1.
I spoke at length when asked to comment but, inevitably, my response has been reduced to a soundbite. As a result the report ignores the damage the ban has done to thousands of pubs or the fact that many landlords would welcome an amendment to the ban.
After speaking at a seminar organised by the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Association (FLVA) ten days ago I know there is support for a change in the law. Unfortunately many of the licensees who want change are independents and they lack a strong national voice.
What they really need is the support of a major player like the British Beer and Pub Association but the BBPA isn't interested.
After I spoke at the FLVA seminar I was approached by two senior BBPA figures. They were friendly enough - considering I had criticised the BBPA during my speech - but nothing they said encouraged me to believe that they will change their tune any time soon and certainly not while their current chief executive, health conscious Brigid Simmonds, remains in charge.
Meanwhile the prime minister sticks his head in the sand and insists that the smoking ban "has worked".
Yeah, and I'm the Queen of Sheba.
See: No-one fined for smoking in pubs (Oxford Mail)
Reader Comments (7)
The smoking ban has worked Simon. It was about enforced change of culture by stigmatisation and marginalisation of smokers.
It doesn't matter that thousands of pubs have gone to the wall. The collateral damage was expected and no doubt the big guns like the BBPA were assured it would just create more profit for them thanks to squeezing out independents.
Who cares that some of us have become so reclusive we can no longer be considered members of the "public" any more. That was always the aim.
It was never about health. It was always about hate and social exclusion.
There is a high level of compliance because the very severe fines fall on licensees, not just smokers. If you smoke in a pub, you are violating "house rules" as well as the law of the land, and you don't want to put your host out of business.
If the potential fines fell solely on smokers, then I'm sure the law would be complied with about as well as the hunting ban.
It certainly has worked, Pat.
Lots of people have given up the habit of a lifetime and stopped going to pubs.
For the next enforced change of use, might I suggest turning football grounds into garden centres?
I'm not interested in football but I do like gardening, so then I'm sure that I would start visiting them frequently.
Well apart from the ones in the middle of cities, I don't like cities, all those traffic fumes and congestion. Not good.
Curmudgeon is absolutely right. No decent person wants to put his local pub or cafe out of business. It is for this reason that extensions in England to other areas, streets and parks, would fail. This ain't California or Australia and with no one but the smoker to fine we can make a stand. The Ashites and their ilk can't see this.They just see a logical extension of the compliance in their pursuit of denormalistion. Trust me, it will not happen. When the only target is the smoker the heels will start to dig in.
Of course the smoking ban has worked:
Thousands of pub and club closures. Over 150,000 staff made unemployed. More noise and litter outside pubs and clubs. Homes near pubs and clubs being devalued. People drinking more at home on cheap alcohol bought from supermarkets. A BIG increase in the number of children drinking on a regular basis, because it is more available in the home.
What about the cost to the Government and the taxpayer?
Unemployment means less tax and Insurance collected by the Government and more money paid by the Government in benefits. Less money raised by the Govenment in VAT, because less alcohol is sold in pubs.
Should I courtesy or should I bow your Highness?