Smokers: out in the cold or not going out?
Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 14:05 
The latest issue of The Publican's Morning Advertiser is out today and it features a four-page cover wrap promoting the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign.
There are two pages of advertorial. One features the story, 'Out in the cold: why smokers are turning their backs on the British pub'. The other is headlined, 'It's time to relax the smoking ban: Government should look to Europe say campaigners'.
There is also a short piece by Joe Jackson plus quotes from several readers of this blog: Pat Nurse, Nick Lowe, Tim Paton, Liz Barber and Jocelyn Erskine-Kellie.
Joe writes:
“We’re told everyone has ‘adapted’ to the ban, ‘got used to it’, ‘moved on’ etc, but this is meaningless when smokers have no choice in the matter. A total ban backed up by stiff penalties is difficult to oppose in any visible way so it was always going to be portrayed as a success as long as there weren’t riots in the streets.
“I no longer go to pubs except occasionally to eat a meal, see a band, or sit in a pub garden in nice weather. When in the UK I socialise at home or in friends’ homes. Sitting in a non-smoking pub I’m uncomfortable because I feel that, by patronising it, I am in effect supporting the ban.
"Yes, some pubs have made an effort but more certainly needs to be done.”
Inside the main body of the magazine there is a further feature about the smoking ban. It has comments from me, Martin Dockrell of ASH, Brigid Simmonds, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, and Tim Martin, chairman of Weatherspoons.
Worth a read. Click here to download pdf versions of both features.
PS. One of the advertorial articles features a picture of a bar in Holland where customers are allowed to smoke. Yesterday judges in the Netherlands ruled that Customers can continue to smoke in small bars.
Reader Comments (29)
Well done Simon, excellent story. Me and my wife went to Holland last week for a short break in Amsterdam we went into a few bars which you could smoke in everyone seemed happy , and there were busy, even with the heavy rain.(but, there were a few non-smoking bars). I did however go into a rather large bar/ restaurant where they had a large smoking room, very civilized.
Impressively put together cover. Feature wouldn't download. Presume Dockrell quoted ASH UK's secret YouGov polls. The polls ever conducted by YouGov with the wording of the questions not available in the archive for public scrutiny. Breaking the Briitsh Polling Council rules.
Yawn, special pleading by tobacco industry funded organisation. Wonder who paid for the advertorial. Most people don't want the current smokefree legislation changed - and even on your poll, just of smokers, only a tiny majority want change.
Keep taking the money Simon, really don't know how you sleep.
Sarah
Exactly right! Hubby and I used to to out every week for a meal, not any more! We might go out now about 6 times a year, mostly when invited to a celebration of some sort.
Yes, it is fine in good weather, except for the moaning and groaning of the brainwashed anti smokers, but nowadays we find it hard to be too civil and usually remind them that they have a choice, which we don't so bog off inside if they don't like the fact that we are smoking! Failing that, lobby to change the rules so that smokers can only smoke inside a pub, cafe or restaurant, then they can have the big outdoors to themselves!
However, it is aggravation like this that also tends to keep us at home, even in good weather, as I tend to let rip and my husband gets in a bad mood, so there is not much point or any fun going out.
We are totally fed up and I, for one, contiue to suffer episodes of deep depression as a direct result.
Jonathan, the files may be too big if you've got a slow broadband connection. I have the same problem on my computer at home but I'll look into it.
Update: I have added a link to the Forest website where you can download both features. Go to:
http://www.forestonline.org/info/recommended-reading/
Great article Simon, the pdf does download if you click on the link from the Forest website. I see there is also a smoking ban survey on the Morningadvertiser/publican website for anyone thats interested.
The survey is towards the end of the page.
http://tinyurl.com/crxtrsr
I had no trouble downloading from the link above in your blog, Simon, just trouble reading the drivel that most spouted - it made my blood boil and I wanted to be sick!
You mention that there's comments by Tim Martin, chairman of Weatherspoons.
Was he talking about Weatherspoons' policy of prohibiting anyone from "smoking" e-cigarettes in his pubs I wonder?
I mention this after it became news that a pensioner was told he couldn't smoke his e-cig in a weatherspoons pub because it encouraged other people to smoke.
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Pub-bans-pensioner-using-smoke-free-cigarette/story-16012512-detail/story.html?ito=SPF
@Sarah Connelly
Sarah are you the person who is Sarah Connelly, CHE? I now quote you:
"Smoking Cessation Classes
The Kaiser Permanente Health Education Department offers two no charge (free) smoking cessation classes to our health members. They are an 8 week program and a single 4 hour workshop, respectively. Please call (559) 448-4415 for more information. To quit smoking will be one of the best and wisest decisions you can make for your health for both short and long term.
The following smoking cessation information may be of interest to you. "
Perhaps you can confirm my logic string here. People smoke, and then at some time in their life may want to quit. So if there were no smokers you would not have a job. Therefore if there was no tobacco industry you would not have a job either?
If anyone is directly or indirectly on the payroll of Big Tobacco it must be you. Hypocrite.
Excellent point Dave A and brilliantly put.
If the "Sarah" in the earlier comment is so sure of the "popularity"
of the Pub smoking ban,then put her exteremely silly asumption to the test,allow the Venues the choice of SMOKING or NON SMOKING, let the Democratic principle of choice take it's course.
Anti-Hypocrits
SOPC piece - fine as far as it goes, but.... the bottom line is that the ban was based on junk science. I hope I'm mistaken, but I doubt you'll make much progress until that myth is busted. Anyway, it's probably too late.
The Mellows* article is pro ban. Usual bollox from Dockrell - the ban was ALWAYS about stopping people smoking, designed to denormalise smoking. Outdoor bans are on the cards now. Where's the junk science to justify these Martin? The whole effing process hinges on general acceptance of the SHS crap - to instil guilt in smokers and fear and hatred in non smokers.
As for Tim Martin, ASH should give him a medal.
*More bilge from Mellows
http://www.cpltraining.co.uk/philmellows/post/IN-MEMORY-OF-THE-SMOKY-PUB.aspx
"But over a number of years, as the pub trade fought a rearguard action against legislation" [Quote from phil mellows]
Did they? Does anyone remember a single word from 'The Pub Trade' against the ban? Does anyone remember any marches (even mooted) by publicans or 'The Trade' against the ban?
'Beware false prophets'. Phil M strikes me as one of those people who wants it both ways - he wants the ban for theoretical reasons but vaguely complains about the practical consequences. And - blow me down! - he complains about his stinking clothes! He didn't complain about his stinking hair - is he bald?
I am sure that he is an intelligent man, but intelligent people are justsusceptibleible to brainwashing as anyone else, especially if they are vaguely biased in the first place. Unfortunately, such people are even more dangerous than the 'think of the children' brigade. They give the junk science an aurarespectabilitylity.
The ban was introduced on completely false pretences, to protect bar staff and non smokers from the so called effects of shs.
This can be properly achieved by having separate smoking rooms with ventilation, no need for a total indoor smoke ban.
I suspect it will go on for as long as the hospitality industry is prepared to put up with it. It maybe them, that need to make the first move on this just as was done in The Netherlands.
Mp's need to understand, the ban is denying thousands of people any decent social life at all.That where shs poses no threat to anyone elses health in a ventilated smoking room for adults, that this should be allowed for the sake of peoples social lives.
"Most people don't want the current smokefree legislation changed - and even on your poll, just of smokers, only a tiny majority want change."
That's funny. According to recent research by Mintel, (reported 11/05) only 3/10 think it more pleasant. 1/7 have stopped going. i.e. 14.3%.
@Dave Atherton
Calm down dear.
You're a genius with google aren't you.
Hilarious analysis based on a 100% wrong starting point.
Sarah Connelly's quite a common name. You should get out more. What even is CHE?
Sarah
Or put another way, 7 out of 10 thought pubs were less pleasant. Kind of explains why people aren't going, eh? Then again, as far as I know, Mintel, unlike YouGov, doesn't have an ASH Trustee running it. Must be frustrating for you when you can't bend the truth or impose your will on others, eh Sarah?
Dave Copeland
With regard to Tim Martin, chairman of Weatherspoons. You say that he, or his company, will not allow people to use e-cigs in a weatherspoons pub because it encourages other people to smoke.
I personally do not like the idea of e-cigs and wouldn't touch one if it was offered to me for free - but that is only my personal opinion, and in my book, everyone should be free to do what they want as long as they are not breaking any laws.
What angers me ( a lot of things actually) is that as far as I know, Weatherspoons are still what is known as a "public house" and what is a public house, other than a place where the general public are free to go?
But if a large proportion of the public are not free to act in a completely law-abiding way in such places, then surely the owners of such properties could face legal action?
These places, such as Weatherspoons, have the law on their side, where actual smoking is concerned - but to ban a person from placing a piece of plastic in their mouth because it looks similar to a real cigarette is just going too far. Would a young child be thrown out from Weatherspoons if they dared to use a bubble pipe in there? (I am not sure if bubble pipes actually exist any more?) but you get the picture?
When I was a young child at school I was often hauled out to the front of the class by my teacher, for chewing gum, "come out to the front Peter and spit that gum in the waste basket" they would say. The problem was, that I wasn't chewing gum at all - I absolutely hate the stuff - but I had this habit (and still do) of chewing on my tongue while I work.
If we take Tim Martin's rules as a metaphor, then I would have been banned from school for possibly encouraging other kids to chew gum - that is how bloody ridiculous this is!
I think the smoking ban is a very unjust law - but at least it is the law and until it is changed, we are stuck with it, but when we have the likes of Tim Martin's Weatherspoon chain interpreting the law to suit their own warped ends then it is time to start challenging them.
Dear Dave Atherton,
I’m a murder team detective.
Perhaps you can confirm my logic string here. People kill, and then at some time in their life may want to quit. So if there were no killers I would not have a job. Therefore if there was no murder industry I would not have a job either?
If anyone is directly or indirectly on the payroll of Big Murder it must be me. Hypocrite.
Yours,
A Confused Officer
A Confused Officer - odd analogy. Murder is illegal, Big Tobacco is not. Heck, I guess one could argue that some of the £11 billion raised in duty might find its way into your pay packet.
A certain 'Dickie Doubleday' springs to mind.
I think Sarah is just your average Smokerphobic bigot who moans about Little Tobacco while supporting hate crime from the likes of fellow smokerphobic Simon Chapman on $3 million a year and the multi billion pound Big Tobacco Control Industry.
Pot, Kettle, black. Hypocrite comes to mind.
How do you sleep at night knowing that your side of the debate is leeching funds off the NHS which is leading to the loss of one in 20 nurses and endangers direct patient care including care of sick children that bigots like Sarah probably poisons with her traffic fumes but that doesn't matter as long as she can blame people she personally despises.
You people don't work for altruistic reasons. You're in in for the money - Big Tobacco Control also has shares in Tobacco companies moron so how do the likes of Arnott et al "sleep at night".
Profit and hatred motivate these people. It's not about health as Sarah demonstrates so keep talking dear because you're exposing yourself with your own foul mouth and prejudices.
We do have this profile perhaps you can come clean. If that is the case, perhaps you can answer me this question.
When Ken Clarke was Chancellor in 1994 he was the first to ring fence cigarette taxes specifically for the NHS, a policy confirmed by Gordon Brown. So the Department of Health uses my taxes to produce junk science, pay fake charities like ASH and oppress me. Talk about having your cake and eat it.
I see your first post is at 17.46. I doubt any civil servant is still in the office at that time. Perhaps I am wrong but can you confirm that no taxpayer's money was consumed while you wrote your post.
Your second post is more interesting, being 10.38 am. I would feel very reassured you had the day off and posted from your own PC and again not using mine and other people's taxes.
If I am barking up the wrong tree perhaps you can confirm your interest in this debate, rather than ill informed prejudice.
"Sarah Connelly
Policy Manager at Dept of Health, London, United Kingdom
Public Policy
Current Policy Manager at Dept of Health
Education
The University of Glasgow
Connections
Public Profile
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/sarah-connelly/3/a99
Simon, troll or not Sarah is right in one point- the Poll was the perhaps the single biggest tactical error FOREST has made so far-although I stress I don't consider it a personal error of judgement on your part because I, and I'm sure most others, would have also thought it a good idea. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
But the poll has given the (C)ASHites their greatest weapon - they will be able to claim- with some justification- forever after that even smokers by and large support the ban, citing the poll as 'proof'.
I hope that when the compulsory uglified 'einheits' packets come in (and judging by FOREST's past success rate it is only a question of time) that we smokers will wake up and will realise that every pub closure is a VICTORY for our side! Instead of bemoaning the loss of however many thousands of pubs since the ban we should be celebrating every closure because every closure weakens the lie that the Trade still insists on propagating - the lie that the smoking ban is an opportunity not a death knoll.
Smokers need to boycott Pubs. FOREST should call for a boycott of all UK DUTY PAID tobacco. Every corner shop and every pub that closes, every ruined existence must be laid at the door of the (c)ASHites and their Obergruppenfuhrer Lansley , who at least has had the honesty to admit to wanting a commercial Endlosung.
BD, how can you say that the poll was "the single biggest tactical error Forest has made" when it had nothing to do with us?! Read my post again. The poll was commissioned by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association not Forest. You are just looking for an excuse to have a go at us (again).
That apart, I disagree profoundly with your comments. Forest has to live in the real world, not the world as we would like it to be, and like it or not a minority of smokers don't want the smoking ban changed. There is no point sticking our heads in the sand and pretending this isn't so. Far better to be open about it.
Credibility is important and that means being open and honest and not indulging in outrageous spin and/or deceit. (Compare our stance with CRUK's masterfully disingenuous survey on tobacco marketing that was published earlier this week. In my eyes CRUK has lost all credibility.)
Nevertheless, the poll - which I stress was conducted in 2010 and is therefore two years old - was very clear: a substantial majority of smokers were opposed to the smoking ban and supported separate smoking rooms, while an even larger majority were opposed to further restrictions.
Given that our opponents are often telling the media and politicians that "most" smokers support the ban, the poll has been a useful tool these past two years because it demonstrates that they are wrong. I would add that the poll was conducted by a well-established research company using a statistically significant sample so it carries some weight.
What is the alternative to NOT carrying out such polls? Doing nothing? In that case the only polls that MPs and the media would ever see would be polls commissioned by tobacco control.
Of course I support the view, expressed elsewhere, that as long as even a small minority support smoking rooms (or an amendment to the ban) Forest will continue to lobby on their behalf because minority interests should not be subjugated to the "tyranny of the majority".
Finally, "the single biggest tactical error" Forest could make would be to call for a boycott of pubs and UK duty paid tobacco. Other groups can do that if they want but I believe it would be a serious mistake. We would be marginalised even further and would risk looking ridiculous, even among our supporters. (Correction, we *would* look ridiculous.)
In particular we would lose any support we might have within the hospitality industry. (Yes, we do have some support.) In addition we would almost certainly lose the backing of those MPs who do support us. After all, can you imagine any MP supporting campaigns to boycott UK pubs and UK paid tobacco duty? Exactly.
Like us or loathe us, Forest enjoys a seat at the table (in media terms especially) and we would be foolish to throw that away by making gung-ho statements that will be ignored by 99.9 per cent of the population.
But if others want to go down that route, good luck to them.
Ahh I see the problem. I thought by 'poll' that Sarah was refering to the Petition By AWT - which if it wasn't actually your baby you (FOREST) certainly adopted and rasied as your own. My use of the word 'poll' was wrong and confusing- I should have been clearer. Sorry.
BD, I can confirm that the AWT petition was Forest's baby and I have no regrets, although the response was ultimately disappointing. That said, it did very much better than any other smoking ban petition and I am sure that had Forest not taken up the challenge we would have been criticised for that as well, so we can't win. Even with the benefit of hindsight I am glad we gave it a go.
"I am sure that had Forest not taken up the challenge we would have been criticised for that as well, so we can't win." -Simon
I said i thought it was a good idea at the time and yes ,in all honesty, I would have criticised you for not doing it. But even if Sarah wasn't refering to it this time you can be sure the (C)ASHites will -if they haven't already. And the fact that it got more votes than any other of Pro Smoking ones is further manna to them- "EVEN the FOREST backed petition posted by a Celeb got less votes than 'Forcibly Repatriate The Lesser Pink Spotted Scottish Gull To Syke' ".
"After all, can you imagine any MP supporting campaigns to boycott UK pubs and UK paid tobacco duty? Exactly."
Why do I have the feeling that the path to the rapidly approaching Ban in Cars and Ban in Own Homes (both of which I am certain will arrive before my 40 a day kill me) is paved with such sentiments?
What exactly has having the support of a few minor politicians actually achieved that would make not losing their support so important? Surely the utterances of Lansley et al recently have made clear that there is no point in trying to garner the support of politicians.
(ps Simon, that was all fairly rhetorical - I know you dislike answering off topic)