Relax the smoking ban, says SOPAC
Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:10 
The new issue of The Publican's Morning Advertiser is out today.
It features a four-page cover wrap promoting the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign that was set up by Forest in the aftermath of the smoking ban.
Inside there are two pages of editorial that include a topical photo of Nigel Farage at the launch of the campaign in 2009.
To read it download the file here.
Inside the magazine is an additional three-page feature that reads:
Keeping tabs on the ban
Artist and smoker David Hockney once said, “A pub is not a health club”. And, according to Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest which runs the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign [SOPAC], “If the government can ban smoking in every pub and bar in the country they can also dictate people’s eating and drinking habits. Long-term that could have an enormous impact on the hospitality industry.”
The Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign was set up in 2009 to campaign for an amendment to the legislation so that pubs would be given the option of having a separate well-ventilated smoking room.
“This policy is quite common in mainland Europe, for example, and it seems to work well because it gives everyone – customers, landlords, even staff – a choice,” says Clark, adding that he thinks it is “extraordinary” that the government has not carried out a comprehensive review of the impact of the smoking ban.
“Politicians and public health campaigners quote reports that suggest that heart attack admissions to hospital have come down since the smoking ban, but these reports have been discredited because heart admissions fluctuate and official figures show they were coming down well before the ban,” he says.
“Of course, a great many people, including customers and staff, prefer a smoke free environment and we respect that. We’re not asking for the ban to be repealed, just amended to give the industry and their customers, many of whom have deserted their local pub in the wake of the ban, some degree of choice.”
With this in mind, the Publican's Morning Advertiser (PMA) asked Forest a range of questions to help shed light on the core issues of which the pub trade should be aware.
PMA: How has the recent uplift in interest surrounding UKIP thrown the smoking ban back into the spotlight?
Forest: In the recent local elections UKIP secured almost one in every four votes cast (24%), winning 147 council seats, up from eight in 2009. Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme before the elections, UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he wanted to amend the smoking ban and allow separate designated smoking rooms, the same policy advocated by the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign.
Farage’s comments provoked a storm of comment. Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston subsequently warned her party against trying to outflank UKIP as the party of ‘booze and fags’. The truth is a great many people – especially those who enjoy a pint and a cigarette – feel disenfranchised from the political system. Successive governments have slowly turned the screw on their habit and made it difficult, if not impossible, to enjoy a relaxing evening in their local pub.
Nigel Farage’s comments about the smoking ban, and his obvious love of a beer and a cigarette, have clearly not done UKIP or their leader any harm. This has not gone unnoticed in Westminster and we now have a great opportunity to have a national debate about the ban and, more important, how to secure the future of Britain’s ailing pub trade.
PMA: What can licensees do to show their support for an amendment to the ban?
Forest: We would encourage licensees to visit the Save Our Pubs and Clubs website and register their contact details. We can then alert them to the latest news and developments. They could host events, with our assistance, to help promote the campaign.
We can supply tools – window stickers, beer clips, beer mats, posters – to help promote the campaign via the local media. They could also invite customers to sign a petition to amend the ban. It’s important too that they contact their MP to explain why, in their opinion, the smoking ban should be amended.
PMA: How might the Localism Bill affect restrictions on smoking and how this can specifically affect the pub industry?
Forest: Even under the Localism Bill councils don’t have the power to enforce smoking bans in outdoor areas, except on council property. The Bill does however give local authorities greater responsibility for public health and we are concerned that some councils may use this as an excuse to discourage smoking in outdoor areas such as parks, beaches and around public buildings, including pubs.
The threat may be small at present but it’s something the pub trade needs to be aware of and monitor because such policies have a habit of escalating very quickly, especially if a rogue councillor gets a bee in his bonnet about a particular issue. The industry has to be united in its opposition to further restrictions on smoking around hospitality venues.
PMA: In an ideal situation, what would be the outcome for the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign?
Forest: In a perfect world customers would have a choice of smoking and non-smoking pubs that would reflect customer demand. A ‘smoking pub’ would have modern air filtration systems so we are not advocating a return to the days of smoke-filled pubs.
An acceptable compromise would involve a relaxation of the ban that would allow separate, well-ventilated smoking rooms in pubs and bars. This would bring the UK into line with many countries in mainland Europe where smoking rooms work well and offer everyone – customers, proprietors and staff – the choice we are denied in the UK.
Our goal is greater choice for all. We have no problem with no-smoking pubs, we simply want publicans to have the option to introduce a smoking room if there is sufficient demand and it would help their business.
In difficult economic times an amendment to the law would give the pub trade a significant boost. Given the fierce debate that would inevitably take place, this could generate huge interest in Britain’s pub culture. The trade should support the opportunity to sell itself as a forward-looking industry that seeks modern, technological solutions to issues such as smoking in public places and embraces all potential customers, whether they be smokers or non-smokers.
This is also a sociological issue because loneliness is a major problem in society, especially amongst the elderly. A lot of smokers, especially those who were used to going to the pub for a pint and a fag, now stay at home, often on their own. The pub industry should be fighting to entice them back, not just for the good of their business but for the good of society. One way to get them back is to offer comfortable smoking rooms where they can drink and smoke in a sociable environment.
PMA: What’s the next best option to an amendment to the legislation?
Forest: We will never stop campaigning for an amendment to the ban – too many people feel the legislation is excessive and unfair – but the Government should at least relax some of the petty regulations on outdoor smoking shelters. To insist that outdoor shelters are 50% open to the elements is petty and spiteful. If they have the space, publicans should be allowed to erect proper smoking rooms, not shelters, outside their pubs. There is no good reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to do this.
PMA: What sort of time frames is the campaign working within?
Forest: We are currently looking no further than the next general election. If the leading parties want to capture some of the ground they have lost to UKIP one area they should look at is the smoking ban. Our target is to convince at least one mainstream party to agree to review the impact of the smoking ban and include that commitment in their manifesto. Obviously we would welcome the support of the pub trade.
Beyond that, our hope is that whichever party is in government will review the impact of the ban. The review should include a public consultation so that all stakeholders, including the ordinary pub goer, can make their views known.
PMA: Could UKIP publicity potentially harm the pub trade’s credentials, or help it?
Forest: UKIP’s support for an amendment to the smoking ban and Nigel Farage’s very obvious love of a ‘pint and a fag’ can’t do the trade any harm. It’s certainly a welcome relief from all those politicians and parties who are forever telling us how much to drink or what we should eat.
It would be unwise however for any industry or campaign to align itself with any political party because that could be counter-productive and would almost certainly alienate representatives or supporters of other parties.
The Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign welcomes Nigel Farage’s comments about the smoking ban. We hope that it will lead to a long overdue debate about the impact of the ban and the need for an amendment to the legislation. More important, we hope it will generate a national discussion about Britain’s pub culture and what can be done to revive an industry that has faced enormous problems in recent years.
PMA: Is there a possibility of smoking being banned in beer gardens and outside pub areas? Explain more about the potential for further threat to the industry.
Forest: The previous Labour government was committed to reviewing the impact of the smoking ban in 2010, three years after the ban was introduced in England and Wales in 2007. Although it would have given opponents of the ban an opportunity to highlight the negative impact of the legislation, there was concern that the ‘review’ might prompt an extension of the ban to outdoor areas – entrances and beer gardens, for example.
In the event the Coalition Government chose not to review the impact of the ban and the threat of the ban being extended to areas outside pubs has receded. The threat hasn’t gone away, however, and the hospitality industry shouldn’t be complacent. If the smoking ban was extended to outdoor areas it could drive away many more customers and provide the final nail in the coffin for many pubs that have adapted, often with difficulty, to the smoking ban.
It would also be a kick in the teeth for all those businesses that have spent large sums of money creating half decent outdoor areas where customers can smoke in semi comfort. No-one should doubt the determination of the tobacco control industry to drive smoking – and smokers – to the margins of society. Inevitably that has an effect on Britain’s pubs. The industry should be aware of the threat and must be united and ready to act if the threat becomes reality.
PMA: Do you have other message for the pub trade?
Forest: We lost the battle for exemptions to the smoking ban because the pub industry, the BBPA in particular, decided it wanted a level playing field across the hospitality sector and wouldn’t support an exemption for private members’ clubs.
The pub trade has to understand there can never be a level playing field, not even within the industry. Not every pub has space for a separate smoking room, or even a comfortable outdoor smoking area, but who wants every pub to be the same? The trade must embrace diversity, and that includes a range of smoking policies (including a comprehensive ban) that can be adopted according to the wishes of the publican, his customers and his staff.
Above all, the trade should take a stand on this issue because the legislation represents exactly the type of excessive regulation the industry should oppose. It’s never too late to amend a bad law and it’s not too late to relax the smoking ban.
Reader Comments (27)
It makes complete common sense and is the right thing to do which means that swivel eyed smokerphobics will hate it and start choking on fresh air at the very thought of it.
"Is there a possibility of smoking being banned in beer gardens and outside pub areas?"
Of course there is, it is already in force in Australia.
Appeasement hasn't worked, so the very best thing the pub industry can do is to keep anti-smokers busy fighting off amendments to the current ban. If not, they'll inevitably move to the next logical step, quoting Australia as a shining example and bullying govt, natch.
I'm certain many thousands of people have stopped using pubs and clubs since the ban was introduced. Many particularly our elderly have become excluded from society as a direct result.
This amounts to Britain's pubs and clubs not accommodating its own people.
Its not just about choice.
The smoking ban is wrong.
No amendment…I want a repeal
There are no circumstances under which I would vote for an amendment – in this life time or any other.
This nasty, spiteful and vindictive piece of legislation crawled its way on to the statute book on the 1st July 2007. Well it can crawl its way back off. Nobody other than the health lobby and anti-smoking zealots pushed for this divisive law which has spewed forth relentless persecution and unmitigated spite without mercy. Did anyone notice the general public beating a path to No 10 asking for a blanket ban? I’m sure you don’t need reminding of the compromise that Labour offered in its 2005 manifesto pledge which it reneged on.
We know there was never any public consultation on this issue, however there was a public sector consultation. In other words the government asking itself through quango’s it had set up with taxpayers’ money whether the taxpayer agreed to it or not. This was a gross betrayal – and nothing less.
A problem I can see with an amendment is simply this, how long do you think it would take the self-righteous prohibitionists to come sniffing around and lobbying weak willed politicians in any subsequent government, into watering down an amendment, and helpful suggestions by the health lobby would invariably be included which could easily slip through unannounced and therefore unnoticed – do you seriously believe this wouldn’t happen? Before long you would be back to a full blown ban again because so many strings will have been attached so as to make it unworkable. Oh no brother – that you can stick in your ear!
If the ban were repealed then parliament would have to go through the whole process of putting an unpopular law back on the statute book – and that would take years – or not at all if there was no appetite for it.
Furthermore, remember this. An amendment only means that a concession has been made to smoking in public – it does not remove the stigma of a draconian law. That can only be done through a complete repeal which would fully acknowledge that the law was wrong in the first place as well as fully removing pariah status.. An amendment will only serve to muddy the water with different interpretations being practised throughout the land particularly amongst local authorities.
If the UKIP trend continues putting pressure on the other two parties by taking large numbers of their voters' away (I hope it does), then both Labour and the Conservatives will have to talk to Nigel Farage at the next election…which then begs the question…why on earth should Nigel Farage settle for an amendment when he would have them over a barrel. Politicians have a nasty habit of not delivering when they’ve garnered your votes and an amendment could eventually be twisted out of all recognition. No thanks. This one has to be nailed down tight with also a nod to quango and fake charity funding!
With this big stick he could poke their backsides six ways from Sunday and they would have to go along with him if they want his support to form the next government. Now then be honest– would you just settle for an amendment?
Only UKIP can slay with one fatal blow the many headed Hydra for us at the next election…and I suspect you know that.
worst idea ever. we need stricter smoking bans, not relax them.
There is a reason australia and united states are leading the pack with smoking bans. smoking needs to be banned in parks/beaches/outdoor restaurants/5 yards from within buildings.
If you want to smoke, do it in your house. Don't be inconsiderate enough to smoke around people who want a smoke free outdoor area. Smokers forget THEY are the ones bothering us. Do you like car exhaust fumes being blown directly into your face? Didn't think so.
smoking is a disgusting addictive habit.
For those who can't be bothered to read Mike's post above, I'll summarise it for you: "me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me."
I think that sufficiently paraphrases his excellent points about tolerance and freedom of choice, of junk science being used to dictate policy, of State impingement on private property and business rights, on the massive economic damage caused by bans, on social divisiveness and hatred being caused by a deliberate policy of denormalisation, of straitened tax funds being spent on literally hundreds of sock puppet fake charities and of enforced isolation and anomie particularly for the elderly and disabled.
Well argued sir!
Mr A
enlighten me on how the post is about 'me' when smokers are the ones who are inconsiderate and forcing their disgusting habit around others.
Example: If I am at the park with my family and I see a smoker - I obviously do not go sit down next to him. I see he is chain smoking and choose to be in an area where there is no one smoking, so I go there.
Now while I am there, another disgusting smoker decides to sit down next to me even though I was there first and he has no idea if I enjoy smelling his disgusting cigarette smoke for the next hour or so. Not to mention my family. So no matter where I go I have to accommodate smokers?
Who the hell is imposing their habits on who here?
Smoke in your home, not around people who don't want to breathe it. Basic human decency/consideration. But you people don't normally have that, thinking everything outdoors is yours and throwing your cigarette butts in the street creating garbage and littering.
Correct, Mike, if its not proscribed, it can be done. Who's side to we take? Those who smoke and the majority of non smokers who couldn't care less or the minority who 'can't stand it'? Which do you think is the fairest?
BTW, for those who 'can't stand it' I usually recommend a Doctor as they may have a nasal problem. For those who believe the health gunge or have 'hypochondrial anxiety' ( a proper medical term) I would advise somebody more specialist or, at least, a course of prozac.
"Do you like car exhaust fumes being blown directly into your face? Didn't think so." - mike
If mike is like every other citizen in the UK, then he will regularly consume lots of car exhaust fumes and, when driving a car, in particular, then what he inhales from his own exhaust plus the roads outside his car will far exceed any danger or "disgusting" fumes coming from anyone's cigarette. In fact, the EU's permitted exposure levels for substances coming from vehicles such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons MASSIVELY exceed the amounts of the same substances coming from cigarettes - so much so, in fact, that if it were true that "second hand smoke" is as dangerous as tobacco control contends, then going anywhere near a car would be tantamount to suicide by sarin gas.
However, like many fanatical anti-smokers, mike's world is very selectively assessed so that where smoking is concerned his pet phobia is justified by any subjective whim.
Lastly, his language does not win friends or influence people: instead, it's just nasty and intolerant and the thought of accommodating anyone who smokes, anywhere, is anathema to him. If mike expects any respect for his views then he needs to remember, badly, that respect is a two way street!
Both sides can be accommodated without one forcing it's choice to smoke or not smoke on the other.
People like Mike are just smokerphobic and represent a tiny minority of hysterics who do want it all their own way simply because they do not like people who smoke. There should be funding to look into their socially divisive paranoid phobia. Rather than being encouraged, they should be committed.
See comment 1 - I anticipated his sort would be choking on fresh air at the very mention of being fair to legitimate adult tobacco consumers.
And there we have it - in the very first line of your reply we have "enlighten me on how the post is about 'me' when smokers are the ones who are inconsiderate and forcing their disgusting habit around others" with it's almost deafening, unspoken "on me."
Then your whole comment is littered with "disgusting"s etc. These are subjective opinions and so, be definition, YOUR opinions. As I said, me me me.
Anyone with not utterly consumed with egocenticism would recognise that when 25% of the population smoke, by fairness, 25% of places should allow smoking. The fact that you can have museums, galleries, offices, trains, buses, theatres, cinemas, restaurants, bowling alleys, shopping centres, libraries, in fact (99% of all places and STILL not allow one place, pubs (and even then, not ALL pubs, just SOME pubs) to allow smoking, shows how utterly selfish you are.
Your whole response is full of "I"s - "If I go to the park", "no matter where I go." Yet, no-one here is saying anything like that at all. People here are saying - yes, you can have the offices, you can have the theatres, you can have the cinemas etc. We just want some pubs, IF the owner allows us (not us, someone else). If they don't, we'll abide by their wishes and not demand that the world revolve around us and our whims, as you clearly do.
The very fact that there is a ban shows the anti-smoker selfishness as the whole point of it is to stop others from doing what they want, even if they own the property themselves. If there was no ban, there would be a happy equilibrium of what the genuine majority found acceptable, as there was before the ban, when really the only places people could smoke was in pubs. Smoking was not allowed, by general public consensus, anywhere else - there was no need for a law as there was a general public agreement, dictated by market forces (i.e. what the majority wanted). If people (as in the majority, rather than a foaming at the mouth minority) genuinely thought smoking was unacceptable there would be NO NEED for a ban, as there was no need for a ban in cinemas, theatres, buses etc in 2006.
The fact that there needs to be a ban and that it needs to have such a large stick behind it in order for people to abide by it shows that it goes against the will of the majority of what most people actually think is acceptable.
Mike, if the smoking ban were relaxed, there would still be a market for non-smoking pubs and restaurants, as has been demonstated in the Netherlands. Most middle class families with children, for example. In fact, you would then have smoke-free outdoor areas available because some businesses would choose to make their whole property non-smoking. Currently just about all places allow smoking outside because they want the smokers' custom. Surely having some places completely non-smoking and some allowing smoking throughout is preferable to the current situation?
Frank,
If I was in the minority, laws wouldn't be sweeping nations like Austraila and America. All of us non-smokers are fed up.
And that makes total sense - let me take prozac because I dont like cigarette smoke blown in my face. Genius!!
We see the 'mike' argument over and over and over. The problem is that it ins't an argument - it is a statement.
I don't know why we rise to the bait!
If you want to smoke, do it in your house.
Answer: No.
Don't be inconsiderate enough to smoke around people who want a smoke free outdoor area.
Answer: I am not inconsiderate.
Smokers forget THEY are the ones bothering us.
Answer: I do not bother you.
Do you like car exhaust fumes being blown directly into your face?
Answer: No.
Smoking is a disgusting addictive habit.
Answer: It is not.
Goodbye, mike. Have a nice day.
I'd actually like to go to the park without some spoiled little brat having an ear-splitting tantrum whilst her indulgent parents invite their little princess to have a cuddle before capitulation whereupon the screaming miraculously stops.
Please can I have child-free areas of the park?
"If I was in the minority, laws wouldn't be sweeping nations like Austraila and America."
Don't be silly. If you were in the majority it would have occurred of it's own volition previously. Laws and penalties wouldn't be needed. Market forces and all that. BTW, laws are not 'sweeping'. If you were more aware you'd realise that some places are now starting to retract them. You're worst nightmare.
"All of us non-smokers are fed up."
There you go! You speak for everybody.
"And that makes total sense - let me take prozac because I dont like cigarette smoke blown in my face. Genius!!"
Oh, dear. Waste of time, isn't it?
While I'm at it could I also say that I loathe:
People who insist on answering their phones unnecessarily in public places;
People who eat in the street;
People who text while walking in the street;
People who swear in public;
People who throw litter out of their car windows
and I don't much like the smell of garlic/onion/coffee breath
I really envy mike - he hates only 25% of the population - I hate what 90% do. I really think the 90% should take themselves off to a desert island and stop offending me!
The point about the selfishness of anti-smokers like mike has now been well made. Moreover, I find the extent of this selfishness annoying to the point now where I could almost smash a fist in their stupid ignorant faces and I am sure I am far from alone.
One of the typical responses one gets when stating there should be amendments to the smoking ban is a petulant : "why should I have to put up with someone else's smoke?"
I long ago decided to reply to this question with another question, which is: "tell me, do you go everywhere?'
The usual reply is a snort: "well, of course not!"
To which I ask another question which is: "then why does EVERYWHERE have to accommodate your tastes?"
Their usual reply to this is a constipated silence...
I'm not over bothered about Mike. His ridiculous statements are typical of the intolerance that has been whipped up and are obviously taken directly from the heavily funded anti-smoking lobbies.
What I do care about is our Pubs and Clubs which this article is about.
Thousands of people still work in this industry yet many thousands have lost their jobs as a direct result of the smoking ban.
Take it one step further - many small businesses have folded as a direct result of the smoking ban, along with social isolation having increased.
I no longer visit pubs and clubs as a result of it; neither do my friends and family. It's no hardship to any of us since we lead extremely busy lives and are able to go elsewhere to socialise where we can be accommodated in comfort. Many people do not have this opportunity.
To be perfectly honest I feel that the pubs and clubs industry should feel a sense of shame for not fighting this extreme piece of legislation at the outset. I am however pleased that they are at long last realising that lies and heavily-funded propaganda will never conquer the truth and common sense.
There is a reason college campuses across america are smoke and tobacco free. No smoking indoors or outdoors on hundred-acre campuses. You can bet they will not repeal their smoking bans, and just influence other areas to do the same.
They are thinking progressively, while everyone in this blog is stuck in the past.
It's only a matter of time until you are all extinct.
Might as well quit this disgusting habit and save yourself as well as others from your second hand smoke.
That is of course you all disagree with world leading institutions - they must be doing something wrong and everyone in here is correct, right?!?!
Prohibition and intolerance are regressive. Get back to your cave, man. Tolerance is the progressive way forward and a solution for BOTH sides of this debate not pandering to the loony hysterical phobics that seek to discriminate and exclude.
What flipping nasty planet are you living on? Oh yes, the land of the vile, bigoted anti-smokER.
There's a reason this is happening in America. It's called money, lies, junk science, and it will turn back soon as people begin to realise the true vicious motives of people like psychotic Glanz et al.
"I really believe that among the active researchers in these fields, there is no great preponderance of feeling that cigarette smoke is carcinogenic.”
Dr Sheldon C Sommers, (Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board to the Council for Tobacco Research )
2/10 for that effort, Jim. We do not buy appeals to authority or any other 'he said, she said'. We like proven facts and we like them to be shown.
It is evident that the risks attributed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) by activist organizations and public health authorities worldwide, represent a massive case of deliberate scientific fabrication and misrepresentation.
The principal reason for this conclusion is that, retrospectively, neither measures of individual lifetime doses nor measures of individual lifetime exposures to ETS are possible. Yet all epidemiological studies on ETS and official reviews of the same have pretended that such data had been measured.
The other thing to say about America and why bans are spreading is that the US public (or any public) will - given the right sort of propaganda - believe anything. After all they did once evacuate a whole city believing aliens were invading as they listened to War of the Worlds on the radio.
They couldn't tell the difference between fact and fiction then and they can't now but they are easy to manipulate into hysteria and that is what the anti-smoker industry has done using, as you say John, fraudulent means.
Only the stupid or the phonic like Jim or Mike believe it but then the anti-smoker industry does need it's useful gullible idiots and if they have that intolerant, vile, abusive edge, with a willingness to bully others - especially the weak like pregnant women - then all the better. Job done.
Maybe Mike and Jim should take a leaf out of their lord and master's book. Being such a zealot might be becoming old hat.
Hear what Professor Simom Chapman has to say.
You've got to laugh... What do American college campuses have to do with anything? The last country I would copy doing anything, is warmongering America!
Tolerance is the way forward for all and as has been proven in the past (in America of all places) prohibition DOES NOT WORK. Yet the anti-smoking lobby would ban tobacco.
Alcohol prohibition in America made Al Capone and cannabis consumption in the West is fuelling the Mexican drug wars!
Some people really need to get a grip on reality. Jim/Mike, you can't just have it YOUR way unfortunately. How do you feel about civilians getting murdered in Mexico, so that we can have our 'prohibition' to protect OUR people, when all the drugs are consumed by OUR people. Just how does that sit with you?
Smoking rooms are the progressive way forward and while they're at it legalise cannabis for the sake of millions of westerners and the whole of Mexico.
Would I allow smoking back in my bar if the law was repealed? No. But I would build a decent smoking room.