The Smoking Ban - 2 years on.

[semi-pro waster]

The market works for reducing smoking where customers want it reduced, the bottom line was that pubgoers generally were not that bothered about it. However, the market very rarely results in absolute or blanket restrictions. There were no smoking pubs prior to the ban, there was choice. Now there is no choice at all.

Which is why I said earlier that market forces don't account very well for mild preferences - a quick straw poll of people I know would have the response to the smoking ban as a positive (even the smokers don't seem to care much) but not enough to become militant about where they went to as a result of smoking or not.

The choice has effectively flipped - before it was a simple go out and into a smoky pub or don't go out, now it is go out to a non-smoky pub or don't go out (with the added option for smokers of standing outside to indulge). I can't speak to other areas of the country prior to the smoking ban, I'm sure there were some non smoking pubs, but in Dundee I knew of none whatsoever so to suggest it was a choice isn't quite realistic.

 

[Dolph]

Which is why I said earlier that market forces don't account very well for mild preferences - a quick straw poll of people I know would have the response to the smoking ban as a positive (even the smokers don't seem to care much) but not enough to become militant about where they went to as a result of smoking or not.

Public apathy is not a justification for government intervention. If anything, it's an argument why the government should not be intervening.

The choice has effectively flipped - before it was a simple go out and into a smoky pub or don't go out, now it is go out to a non-smoky pub or don't go out (with the added option for smokers of standing outside to indulge). I can't speak to other areas of the country prior to the smoking ban, I'm sure there were some non smoking pubs, but in Dundee I knew of none whatsoever so to suggest it was a choice isn't quite realistic.

The choice hasn't flipped if you're a smoker. As a non-smoker, I had the choice before of a smoking establishment, a non-smoking establishment, or staying at home. Now one of those choices has been forcibly removed for no justifiable reason, because the public has always had the means to effect change if they desired. If you feel you didn't have all the choices, did you do anything about it?

I don't like smoke, and I like my preferences catered for, but I don't expect everyone to cater for them at the exclusion of others with different preferences. There is room for both sets of preferences without issue.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Public apathy is not a justification for government intervention. If anything, it's an argument why the government should not be intervening.

If the public doesn't especially care either way then what is the objection against government intervention aside from the fact it goes against the idea of a small government?

The choice hasn't flipped if you're a smoker.

I disagree, the status quo has effectively flipped. Prior to the ban it was non-smokers who were inconvenienced by the smokers, now it is the smokers who are inconvenienced by the non-smokers. That, in itself, isn't an argument for the ban in any way, shape or form - it is merely an observation.

As a non-smoker, I had the choice before of a smoking establishment, a non-smoking establishment, or staying at home. Now one of those choices has been forcibly removed for no justifiable reason, because the public has always had the means to effect change if they desired. If you feel you didn't have all the choices, did you do anything about it?

As I've said it appears you were fortunate in having those choices, I didn't and no I didn't complain vociferously nor (usually) take my custom elsewhere (there being no other options meant it would have been a somewhat futile gesture) because it didn't bother me tremendously and I had little idea of the difference it would make.

I don't like smoke, and I like my preferences catered for, but I don't expect everyone to cater for them at the exclusion of others with different preferences. There is room for both sets of preferences without issue.

Perhaps there is/was room for both preferences catered for but the pub industry appeared a little slow on taking the hints and self regulating so rather painted itself into a corner at which point there was only going to be one winner. Smoking rooms/areas with proper ventilation would have been a much more amicable solution and one I'd have been perfectly happy with but from what I recall there wasn't enough in the way of conciliatory noises from the hospitality industry so they almost forced it upon themselves rather than have a workable compromise.

 

[aproctor]

Perhaps there is/was room for both preferences catered for but the pub industry appeared a little slow on taking the hints

I would imagine many non smokers didn't want to take the risk, and many pub owners thought the same way.

5 years ago there were no non smoking pubs in my town
2 years before the ban there was 1
1 year before the ban there was 2 and 3 were 50:50

I think if the ban was relaxed to allow pubs/clubs some choice many would only opt for a smoking room and a small minority would go back to how things were.

Whats cheaper a smoking room or a smoking area governed by legislation in regards to size and the amount of walls, added to this is the cost of heaters etc.

 

[Dolph]

If the public doesn't especially care either way then what is the objection against government intervention aside from the fact it goes against the idea of a small government?

The government is removing rights unnecessarily and unjustifiably. As I've said, the end results are very much in my favour, but I still disapprove of it.

I disagree, the status quo has effectively flipped. Prior to the ban it was non-smokers who were inconvenienced by the smokers, now it is the smokers who are inconvenienced by the non-smokers. That, in itself, isn't an argument for the ban in any way, shape or form - it is merely an observation.

The two situations aren't equivilent at all. There was never a law forcing establishments to allow smoking, non-smokers always had the choice of voting with their wallets. Smokers do not get the same choice to move from a no-smoking establishment to a smoking establishment, because the choice was removed by the state.

I can accept that you may percieve that the status quo has flipped if there wasn't really any smoke free bars, or bars with decent no smoking areas for you to go to, but that wasn't a nationwide problem, nor was it a problem that could only be resolved by banning smoking in bars entirely. I could quite easily see a case for increased ventilation requirements, smoke free staff areas and so on being mandated, and if they would it would tip the balance in a much less draconian fashion.

As I've said it appears you were fortunate in having those choices, I didn't and no I didn't complain vociferously nor (usually) take my custom elsewhere (there being no other options meant it would have been a somewhat futile gesture) because it didn't bother me tremendously and I had little idea of the difference it would make.

And that's what really irks me about this legislation, the above attitude was prevelant throughout the public, so what justification was there for the legislation if it didn't bother people that much?

Perhaps there is/was room for both preferences catered for but the pub industry appeared a little slow on taking the hints and self regulating so rather painted itself into a corner at which point there was only going to be one winner. Smoking rooms/areas with proper ventilation would have been a much more amicable solution and one I'd have been perfectly happy with but from what I recall there wasn't enough in the way of conciliatory noises from the hospitality industry so they almost forced it upon themselves rather than have a workable compromise.

That was the original plan, but the government and the MP's (of all parties) decided they knew better (another reason why the ability of parliment to pass random restrictions must be curbed). Indeed, the government even went back on a manifesto pledge to put the total smoking ban on the table in the first place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4711544.stm

 

[Efour]

Jesus, its nice to have an unbiased argument rather than the usual i dont like smelling of smoke when i binge drink on a friday nights" bog standard replies.

well done dolph.

 

[Nitefly]

Like I've said though, I would 100% support a ban on smoking in the street, where I have no choice but to go, and cannot influence the owner of the area through anything other than the force of law.

I can influence pub and club owners without needing the law, therefore the law should not get involved.

Very interesting - I would never advocate a ban on smoking in the streets. The air blows the smoke away quickly and it is relatively easy to minimise the nuisance. As the nuisance is relatively so small, and it is everybody elses street as much as mine, I would find it unreasonable to ban smoking in these areas entirely.

I think how you are drawing the lines of what is acceptable there is completely understandable, but I'm not sure of the practical nature of the outcome. I don't think the situation should be viewed looking at the removal of freedoms alone, but also in light of the relatively amount of nuisance that each activity causes. Naturally, you will reply that it isn't a nuisance as such because I choose to visit smoke filled bars. Nevertheless, I remain happy that the government has made this choice in my favour. I am quite happy to be selfish about this matter when:

a) The inconvinience caused to smokers is not gross, although this is obviously debatable.
b) The benefit gained to non-smokers is extremely large.

 

[Dolph]

Very interesting - I would never advocate a ban on smoking in the streets. The air blows the smoke away quickly and it is relatively easy to minimise the nuisance. As the nuisance is relatively so small, and it is everybody elses street as much as mine, I would find it unreasonable to ban smoking in these areas entirely.

I think how you are drawing the lines of what is acceptable there is completely understandable, but I'm not sure of the practical nature of the outcome. I don't think the situation should be viewed looking at the removal of freedoms alone, but also in light of the relatively amount of nuisance that each activity causes. Naturally, you will reply that it isn't a nuisance as such because I choose to visit smoke filled bars. Nevertheless, I remain happy that the government has made this choice in my favour. I am quite happy to be selfish about this matter when:

a) The inconvinience caused to smokers is not gross, although this is obviously debatable.
b) The benefit gained to non-smokers is extremely large.

I should perhaps add that while I would support a ban in the street, it would be dependant on evidence suggesting it was clearly beneficial as to whether it should be implemented.

I would also happily support much stronger restriction/regulation as an alternative to a smoking ban in pubs. I recognise, for example, that there are risks to staff (where choice of location is dramatically reduced), and a need to be able to provide a smoke free area could be mandated as well, good ventilation and so on, I wouldn't have a problem with those sorts of measures, they are proportionate to the risks and dangers that people are trying to reduce.

 

[Nitefly]

I would also happily support much stronger restriction/regulation as an alternative to a smoking ban in pubs. I recognise, for example, that there are risks to staff (where choice of location is dramatically reduced), and a need to be able to provide a smoke free area could be mandated as well, good ventilation and so on, I wouldn't have a problem with those sorts of measures, they are proportionate to the risks and dangers that people are trying to reduce.

Do you think such regulations are going to be easier or cheaper to implement than the current ban? If all pubs and clubs had the meet a set standard or air quality (in some areas at least), then this would be potentially impracticle to implement, and the Government would undoubtedly have to provide the appropriate funding.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that the easiest option is always the best one or that the Government should cut corners - but weighing up the options in terms of cost and practicality, I still find it difficult to find that the ban was a bad idea. Perhaps not a wholly flawless policy, but then very few policies are.

 

[Dolph]

Do you think such regulations are going to be easier or cheaper to implement than the current ban? If all pubs and clubs had the meet a set standard or air quality (in some areas at least), then this would be potentially impracticle to implement, and the Government would undoubtedly have to provide the appropriate funding.

The whole point of such regulations would be that there is no requirement to fulfill them if you don't want to allow smoking on site. The cost of implementing the requirements would fall to the publicans, which would in turn mean that it is likely many pubs would remain no-smoking, the market would then find a happy balance between smoking pubs that cost slightly more to run, but target a specific market segment, and other pubs.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that the easiest option is always the best one or that the Government should cut corners - but weighing up the options in terms of cost and practicality, I still find it difficult to find that the ban was a bad idea. Perhaps not a wholly flawless policy, but then very few policies are.

It was a bad idea because it infringed property rights and civil liberties unnecessarily, rather than because of the aim or purpose of the ban. That's my view, and it's consistent whether I'm for or against the end results.

 

[Nitefly]

The whole point of such regulations would be that there is no requirement to fulfill them if you don't want to allow smoking on site. The cost of implementing the requirements would fall to the publicans, which would in turn mean that it is likely many pubs would remain no-smoking, the market would then find a happy balance between smoking pubs that cost slightly more to run, but target a specific market segment, and other pubs.

That's a fair point. Again, I'm dubious of an effective implementation, but a fair point it remains.

It was a bad idea because it infringed property rights and civil liberties unnecessarily, rather than because of the aim or purpose of the ban. That's my view, and it's consistent whether I'm for or against the end results.

Whilst I'm not going to agree with you on this topic, I do admire your completely unselfish attitude

 

[apatia77]

It's lovely how it is - however they could push it further but it's good as it is.

 

[Dolph]

That's a fair point. Again, I'm dubious of an effective implementation, but a fair point it remains.


Whilst I'm not going to agree with you on this topic, I do admire your completely unselfish attitude

It would be most hypocritical of me to expect others to leave me alone while I force my beliefs/preferences on to them. Freedom is not and can never be a one way street

 

[BrightonBelle]

Was looking at some old photographs and people were smoking in the restaurant - seems so unreal! Couldn't believe they were doing it....

So much better with the ban... apart from when you have to walk past a pub.

Edit: I thought it was a permanent ban!?

BB x

 

[Sp00n]

I do enjoy not stinking of cigs but I dont enjoy smelling everyone's farts.

Swings and roundabouts.

 

[SteveOBHave]

I think it's a brilliant thing and I think they should add to it by making smoking in public illegal. I'm sick of walking down the road and breathing in the noxious crap that smokers breathe out. I hate walking downwind from a smoker when their cloud of exhaled pollutant drifts back for 20-30 metres.

If smokers want to kill themselves then fair game but don't include me in your ignorant self destructive ways. Your 'choice' that you're 'entitled' to effects everyone around you, your kids, your workmates, the general public and the rest of your family.

Added to that is now the streets are littered with ciggarette butts from where you loiter around in the streets wasting your employers time and money when you take your once every two hour break to inhale your cancerous crap. Congrats, all I can say is that you're not dying fast enough! (it's natural selection at work, just not fast enough to suit me).

 

[platinum87]

I think it's a brilliant thing and I think they should add to it by making smoking in public illegal. I'm sick of walking down the road and breathing in the noxious crap that smokers breathe out. I hate walking downwind from a smoker when their cloud of exhaled pollutant drifts back for 20-30 metres.

If smokers want to kill themselves then fair game but don't include me in your ignorant self destructive ways. Your 'choice' that you're 'entitled' to effects everyone around you, your kids, your workmates, the general public and the rest of your family.

Added to that is now the streets are littered with ciggarette butts from where you loiter around in the streets wasting your employers time and money when you take your once every two hour break to inhale your cancerous crap. Congrats, all I can say is that you're not dying fast enough! (it's natural selection at work, just not fast enough to suit me).

there are hundreds of things which you could use the same excuse and ban, that would just be a silly emotional way of choosing what should or shouldnt be allowed, something should be decided purely on principle, if there is anything that is similar it too should follow the same principles.

so when thinking about it logically, it falls down to the fact that people who want one thing, agree another is just as bad, and thus use emotion and act on one but not the other because it doesnt bother them.

so many things can be banned with the same reason as smoking etc, because of your attitude your instantly wrong.

 

[Nitefly]

It would be most hypocritical of me to expect others to leave me alone while I force my beliefs/preferences on to them. Freedom is not and can never be a one way street

It seems that one freedom has been replaced by another - the freedom for any individual entering any establishment and to not have to put up with smoke. There is always another side of the coin.

 

[Dolph]

It seems that one freedom has been replaced by another - the freedom for any individual entering any establishment and to not have to put up with smoke. There is always another side of the coin.

The above can only be achieved by taking away the freedoms that come with property rights from the building owner though. It's more fundamental than taking the rights away from smokers in that situation.

 

[SteveOBHave]

there are hundreds of things which you could use the same excuse and ban, that would just be a silly emotional way of choosing what should or shouldnt be allowed, something should be decided purely on principle, if there is anything that is similar it too should follow the same principles.

so when thinking about it logically, it falls down to the fact that people who want one thing, agree another is just as bad, and thus use emotion and act on one but not the other because it doesnt bother them.

so many things can be banned with the same reason as smoking etc, because of your attitude your instantly wrong.

Like what? Cars? Airplanes? Trains?
How many things can you list that are purely for the singular pleasure of the user that are killing not only them but also the people around them?

It's not purely emotional, it's is to an extent because smokers are slowly killing the people around them just for their own ignorant pleasure, but it's also solidly logical. Not even alcohol has the same numbers of deaths to smoking every year.

Smoking kills about 106,000 people a year, alcohol 22,000. Granted boozed people cause deaths through drink driving and the such but even adding that to the people that die from excessive alcohol use it doesn't come close.

I don't understand how anyone can be so extremely thick about something so obvious and so black and white. SMOKING KILLS, there is no grey area, there is no argument.