Patriotism and the pub
Friday, July 10, 2020 at 12:04 
Forest is hosting another webinar on Monday (13th July).
The topic for discussion is 'Patriotism, smoking and the pub'. It was prompted by Boris's suggestion, a few weeks ago, that it's our "patriotic duty" to support the pub.
The PM's rallying cry led to an article by Madeline Grant in the Telegraph. According to Madeline:
The PM insists supporting pubs is a “patriotic duty”, and so it is – not because this timid Government says so, but because, through no fault of its own, a great British institution is in mortal peril. Pandemic, lockdown and excessive caution have conspired to create a situation so dire that we should assume many of our favourite watering holes will never resurface from this economic maelstrom, and spend as if their – and our – lives depended on it.
I know how strongly many of you still feel about the smoking ban (me too!), so much so that some of you have stopped going to the pub, so here's an opportunity to respond to Boris's suggestion that supporting the pub is a "patriotic duty".
Discussing this on Monday evening are:
Madeline Grant (Telegraph), Chris Clarkson MP (tbc), Nick Hogan (former publican), Jim Butcher (writer on tourism), Frank Davis (smoker and blogger), John Mallon (Forest Ireland) and Rob Lyons (author, 'Road To Ruin: the impact of the smoking ban on pubs and personal choice').
I should add that we have invited a number of people from the pub industry (and CAMRA) to speak – and we have drawn a complete blank.
Invitations to publicans, campaigners and trade journalists have either been ignored or we've been fobbed off. The most considered response we received read:
I was quite equivocal about [the smoking ban] at the time, seeing the benefits yet worrying that it would shut some vulnerable people out of the pub.
Now, though, I can't see the point in resurrecting the debate. There are so many bigger issues the pub sector is having to deal with. So, thanks for the invitation, but I'll decline.
I suspect this is the view of most people within the hospitality industry. If so, it's a tad dismissive of Britain's 6.9 million smokers, many of whom no longer go to the pub thanks to the smoking ban.
They want our support but they're not willing to even talk about smoking?
Anyway, do join us on Monday. If you have something to say on this issue, now's your chance. Alternatively you can just listen to the discussion.
Either way it would be good to put faces to some of the names that comment on this blog, although you can listen via audio only.
To register click here.
Update: The following comment was added by Joe Jackson on another post (Is it really our "patriotic duty" to support the pub) several days after the post was published so it probably wasn't read by many people.
I am therefore re-posting it here because it's also relevant to this post:
This is an agonising question for me. To the the smoker commenters saying, if I'm not wanted, I'm not going: 'I feel your pain'! I stayed away from pubs almost entirely for years after the ban. More recently though, I've had to ask myself: do I really want them all to die? And do I never want to go to a pub and enjoy a pint, ever again?
My answer now is no. Instead I've figured out which pubs are still really making an effort and that includes for smokers. Often they're run by smokers and provide the best facilities they can. I want to encourage them and I believe they get the message. They also allow vaping inside which I find makes a big difference, though I still prefer real tobacco and understand others who aren't interested in vaping. The situation stinks and plenty of people know it. No one has come up with a way to actually change it, though. I think it will happen, but in some way we can't see right now, and may never live to see.
Meanwhile I think we all have to deal with it in the way we feel most comfortable with. For me that means going to a select handful of pubs because I can still enjoy them on the whole, and don't want them to disappear. They know I'm a smoker, and they know many others are staying away. I wish the pub trade had done more to stop the ban, but I'm not sure it would have made much difference, and I can't take it out on the individual publicans who still give a damn and are doing the best they can. Though if vaping is banned inside and smoking outside, I may well once again wish them all to hell ...
I think a lot of us would agree with that. If a pub does its best to accommodate smokers we should support it.
The industry as a whole? Meh.
Reader Comments (7)
Nicola sturgeon was comparing seat belt laws with the smoking ban and stating that predictions of wide spread non-compliance turned out to be false. Actually there is clearly wide spread non-compliance in works vehicles of the smoking ban but this is because drivers do not have prison shy publicans sitting next to them telling them to stop smoking.
In addition seat belts are really do save lives but smoking bans do not because we have tens of billions of subject years of data that prove beyond all doubt that lung cancer death rates are not attenuated by reducing exposure to tobacco smoke in populations. But how could she know that as no one has ever published it in the scientific literature.
As the great Richard Feynman said “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
We have been doing the experiment for decades now and the theory is wrong.
I worked in the industry when the smoking ban came in and I remember the monetary figures quoted by Thwaites and Carlsberg Tetley that they were setting aside to build smoking shelters. I pointed out at the time that so much money would be much better pooled and used to fight the ban
Nobody was interested in that suggestion, because almost everyone had bought into the lie that millions of non-smokers would surface and start using the pubs
I left the trade six months after the ban came in and within a year, Thwaites had sold all their managed houses and the tenanted side was tanking
I wondered where all the garish non smoking signs went.
Change to no-smoking signs regulations
8 October 2012
"Since 1 October 2012, at least 1 legible no-smoking sign must still be displayed but owners and managers are now free to decide the size, design and location of the signs."
"Most people are now familiar with the law and around 8 in 10 people support it, so detailed regulations on no-smoking signs are no longer needed.
This deregulation has been made as part of the Government’s Red Tape Challenge, which aims to reduce regulatory obstacles for business."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/change-to-no-smoking-signs-regulations
I can't see me ever spending the whole evening in a pub again, but I'm not averse to a nice pub lunch occasionally, if I am treated with respect.
One tea room that decided to remove the ashtrays many years ago, long before the smoking ban, I never stopped visiting.
"I should add that we have invited a number of people from the pub industry (and CAMRA) to speak – and we have drawn a complete blank"
I am not a bit surprised, Simon.
Having made complete fools of themselves they would hardly want to be reminded of it.
Millions will return to the Pub after Smoking Ban - 20/02/07
"A new survey by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) has revealed the public's attitudes to the forthcoming smoking ban in England and Wales later in 2007.
The sample survey's key findings indicated that:
6.2 million people (17% of all adults in England and Wales) who visit pubs regularly are likely to visit pubs more often. Of that group 97% were non-smokers.
840,000 people who currently never go to a pub said they will after the smoking ban. Added to the figure for people who currently visit regularly that is a total of 7,040,000 people who will visit pubs more often.
93% of real ale drinkers said they would be more likely to visit pubs more often or that their visiting habits would not be changed by the ban. See table 1.
68% of regular smokers say it will not change their pub visiting habits at all.
69% of all adults said it would not affect their visits to pubs at all, only 3% said they would not visit pubs at all as a result of the ban.
Smokers are typically lager drinkers (43% of lager drinkers said they smoke). See table 2
CAMRA Chief Executive Mike Benner said: “This survey shows that non-smokers will be attracted to pubs after the ban comes into force, and many of them would like to find a real ale waiting for them when they get there.
“The smoking ban will be a difficult transition for licensees, but it is encouraging that only 3% of people surveyed by CAMRA said they would not visit pubs at all as a result of the ban. The key will be to ensure that other factors such as quality of real ale, food, atmosphere and welcome are all superb. If this is the case then the traditional Community Pub will have a bright and healthy future.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070313005142/http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=233601
As for what used to be a thriving industry, ASH took a leaf out of John Banzhaf and American ASH's book and threatened them with prosecution. they caved in in terror as you can read for yourself.
ASH Political Bulletin
2004
http://web.archive.org/web/20150326131553/www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_405.pdf
It was never about health, just like the latest attempted assault on our collective freedoms. Is it beyond the wit of man to install ventilation, extractors, filters etc. Cannot have a reasonable debate if the foundation of information is built upon sand. impasse.
"Is it beyond the wit of man to install ventilation, extractors, filters etc."
You have Tornado Repace in 2005 to blame for that, Dr. Sok. We were informed that ventilation does not work.
Chris Snowdon explains.
"The claim that "tornado-level ventilation" is required to make a building "safe" from secondhand smoke was first made by James Repace, a prominent and fanatical anti-smoking activist since the 1970s. In those days, Repace - who has a degree in physics - was working at the electronics division of Washington's Naval Research Laboratory. By the end of the decade he had written his debut study into secondhand smoke, found a job at the Environmental Protection Agency (1) and soon became a well-known and well-paid anti-smoking spokesman and researcher. In 1998 he set up his own company - Repace Associates, Inc - and became a professional 'secondhand smoke consultant'.
His published papers on the subject of tobacco bear all the hallmarks of the theoretical physicist, with the emphasis heavily on the theoretical. In 2005, he made an effort to convince lawmakers that high tech ventilation systems were not the solution to what he called the "mortal hazard" of secondhand smoke and wrote a paper which concluded that the amount of ventilation required to make a room safe from smokers would be the equivalent of a "veritable indoor tornado."
https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/09/1111-james-repace-thinks-of-number-part_02.html
"Despite being intuitively ridiculous, the tornado claim has been repeated around the world. In addition to appearing six times on Repace's own website, a quick Google search reveals that it is currently being reported as fact by, amongst many others, ASH, Unison, Cancer Research UK, Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, the Clean Air Coalition, Smokefree Ohio, Stop Smoking Manchester, Smokefree Europe, the World Health Organisation and GASP (although the last three groups have settled for a mere 'hurricane')."
When trying to work out what on earth happened to Britain, you first have to study what they were up to in America.
Give Anti-tobacco something to say no matter how preposterous, they'll keep on saying it no matter how many times it is disproved.
The industry response to the invitaion to join us for a chat js why I will not go back to the pub . What is the point when we are clearly not welcome.
My patriotic duty is to support only those places that practise the British way of tolerance and inclusion. By refusing your invitation, or ignoring it, they are saying "fcuk off smokers, we don't need you". The feeling is entirely mutual.
I simply don't care if the pub survives or not. A curse on all their houses.