They don't give up, do they?
Undeterred by Parliament’s decision to back the Business and Planning Bill (now the Business and Planning Act) that gives proprietors the right to provide smoking as well as non-smoking areas outside pubs, cafes and restaurants, anti-smoking campaigners are continuing to lobby local councils to refuse pavement licences to businesses whose proposed pavement areas are not 100 per cent 'smoke free'.
'Outside is the new inside,' tweets ASH, adding that 'allowing smoking under new pavement licencing rules is a danger to health and a step backwards in efforts to help people quit.'
The 'danger to health' argument is genuinely outrageous because it plays on some people's unfounded fears about passive smoking and the spread of Covid-19.
Let's be clear: there is no evidence that exposure to tobacco smoke in the open air is a significant threat to anyone else's health.
If there was we would have read or heard about it. And we haven't.
In fact, to suggest that passive smoking in the open air is a risk to other people's health marks another low in the anti-smoking crusade – worse, perhaps, than the equally unfounded claim that 11,000 non-smokers were dying annually of passive smoking in the UK before the indoor smoking ban.
And if it's not the 'threat' of passive smoking, anti-smoking zealots say there's another problem – exhaling smoke in public could pass the coronavirus from one person to another.
Again, to my knowledge, there is little evidence to suggest this is actually happening but some people have decided that evidence is unnecessary because, well, it’s obvious, innit.
As for the Government's amendment being a 'step backwards' in terms of tobacco control, how can it be a backward step when there has never been legislation banning smoking in outdoor areas where people are eating and drinking?
Frankly this is yet another step towards the prohibition of smoking in public places because, for the first time, guidelines have been introduced by government that makes the provision of 'smoke free' areas outside pubs and cafes more than just voluntary.
Despite this the tobacco control lobby continues to whinge (publicly at least). According to a tweet posted by Fresh (formerly Smokefree North East), the new legislation is 'confused'.
Much simpler: say new pavement licenses will be Smokefree. Only 1 in 7 adults smoke. SF [smoke free] very popular. Outdoor spaces can be v cramped. SHS [secondhand smoke] harmful. LAs [local authorities] can take own action on this.
I am reminded of the time before the introduction of the smoking ban in England in 2007.
There was a 3-4 year period when it was clear the Blair government didn't want the responsibility of banning smoking inside pubs and clubs and the matter was left to local authorities.
However the hospitality industry feared it would lead to a patchwork quilt effect up and down the country with smoking banned in pubs in some towns and cities but not in others.
In London, where there are something like 35 borough councils, it could have led to a situation whereby smoking was banned in a pub on one side of the road (in Labour-run Lambeth, for example) but permitted in a pub on the other side (in Conservative-run Wandsworth).
That was the point at which the big pub cos began lobbying for a level-playing field.
Meanwhile, in what world is the Government amendment confusing? The plan seems pretty clear to me:
The government will not ban outdoor smoking in pubs, cafes or restaurants.
Businesses can already make their own non-smoking policies for outside space without the need for regulations. This guidance will reinforce this point, making it clear that the licence-holder has to make reasonable provision for smoke-free seating.
It includes:
1. Clear ‘no smoking’ signage displayed in designated areas.
2. No ash trays or similar receptacles to be provided or permitted to be left on furniture where a smoke-free seating is identified.
3. Licence holders should aim for a minimum 2 metre distance between non-smoking and smoking areas, wherever possible.
'Reasonable provision for smoke-free seating' is exactly what it says. I imagine most proprietors will base their decision on customer demand and the ratio of smokers and non-smokers they expect to attract.
No two businesses will be exactly the same, hence the need for flexibility. What's confusing about that?
Sadly, what is becoming increasingly apparent during the current pandemic is that many people seem pathologically incapable of making choices for themselves.
At all times they want the government to make decisions for them. (This goes for businesses as well as individuals.)
If we continue like this we will create a society in which government makes every significant decision for us and freedom of choice will be slowly eradicated until it no longer exists, at which point people will be incapable of making choices for themselves anyway because they will have lost the habit.
I'm reluctant to draw comparisons with the old Soviet Union but it is widely accepted that the reason many Russians found the collapse of Communism so difficult to handle is because, suddenly, they were faced with making the sort of individual choices that had previously been made for them by the state.
Now that seems to be happening here too. OK, we're a long way short of living under an authoritarian Soviet-style regime but the increasing loss of individual autonomy – including the ability to make decisions for ourselves – is something we must be concerned about.
We agree. The govt amendment is confused. Much simpler: say new pavement licenses will be Smokefree. Only 1 in 7 adults smoke. SF very popular. Outdoor spaces can be v cramped. SHS harmful. LAs can take own action on this. @ADPHNE @LGAWellbeing @LGAcomms @PHE_NorthEast @GM_HSC https://t.co/oJnlptqDiA
— Fresh - Making Smoking History (@FreshSmokeFree) July 23, 2020