Parliament Votes Total Smoking Ban

[Admiral Valdemar]

Smoking ban in all pubs and clubs

MPs have voted by huge margins to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England.

Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt said the change, expected to take effect in summer 2007, would "save thousands of people's lives".

Ministers gave a free vote amid fears Labour MPs could rebel against plans to exempt clubs and pubs not serving food.

The Commons decided by a margin of 328 to ban smoking from all pubs. It then voted by 200 to extend this to clubs.

The Cabinet had been split on how far restrictions - set out in the Health Bill - should go, with Conservatives calling government policy a "shambles".

'Historic day''

Smoking is already to be banned in pubs and clubs in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Health Bill gives the Welsh Assembly the right to decide for itself whether to implement a ban it has already twice approved in principle.

Ms Hewitt, who voted for a total ban for England, told the BBC: "I'm absolutely delighted. This is really a historic day for public health."

She added: "This is going to save thousands of people's lives."

Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Charles Clarke all voted for a blanket ban.

But Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, Defence Secretary John Reid and Education Secretary Ruth Kelly opposed it.

'Illiberal'

Elspeth Lee, of Cancer Research UK, said: "This is really going to affect generations to come and make the nation a lot healthier."

However, Simon Clark, director of smoking support group Forest, said: "This is a double whammy and an unnecessary and illiberal piece of legislation that denies freedom of choice to millions of people.

"The Government should educate people about the health risks of smoking but politicians have no right to force people to quit by making it more difficult for people to consume a legal product."

Earlier, health minister Caroline Flint said fines for failing to stop people smoking in restricted areas would go up by more than ten times from £200 to £2,500.

She said: "I am confident that these increased fine levels will result in better compliance with smoke-free legislation, which of course, will make enforcement easier."

The Cabinet originally proposed prohibiting smoking only in pubs serving food, in line with Labour's election manifesto.

A free vote was offered after many Labour MPs, fearing a partial ban could increase health inequalities among customers and staff, threatened to rebel.

Ministers came up with three choices: a total ban; exempting private clubs; or exempting clubs and pubs not serving food.

Many MPs opposed a smoking ban on civil liberties grounds.

'Good news'

The government predicts an estimated 600,000 people will give up smoking as a result of the law change.

Conservative MPs were offered a free vote on the issue.

Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said ministers had "put forward proposals which their own backbenchers thought were completely unworkable".

But it was "a very important step", he added there "had to be a culture that encourages better health".

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Steve Webb said: "This legislation is good news for tens of thousands of bar staff up and down the country.

"The key issue has always been the health and safety of people who work in public places."

Tory leader David Cameron missed the vote following the birth of his third child, a son, earlier on Tuesday.

In a recent report, the Commons health select committee said a total ban was the "only effective means" of protecting public health.

For once, Parliament has made me respect them a little more. The irony here is, Labour may be remembered here under Blair for this victory, which was not even on their manifesto (they proposed a limited ban).

[Ubiquitous]

This is great news. Shame by 2007 I won't be at uni and thus probably won't have the same amount of nights out where I will smell the benefit of not being smoke-ridden whenever I leave the bar.

A great day!

[LongVin]

Now pubs and clubs will lose tons of business.

[Ubiquitous]

Now pubs and clubs will lose tons of business.

Will they fuck. They might [nationwide] lose a few hundred disgruntled chain-smokers who simply cannot live without their cigs. Within two years, half of them will have caved in and gone back to the pubs, and the other half will be dead from lung cancer.

[LongVin]

Now pubs and clubs will lose tons of business.

Will they fuck. They might [nationwide] lose a few hundred disgruntled chain-smokers who simply cannot live without their cigs. Within two years, half of them will have caved in and gone back to the pubs, and the other half will be dead from lung cancer.

True. But smoking is usually a big part of the bar scene. I know here in NY when they banned smoking in Resutarants and Bars they lost a lot of money. But then again in NY it was only a 20 minute ride to a club that allowed smoking in NJ or LI. And since this ban is effecting all of England they don't have any place else to go.

Though I gurantee you will see bars that give waivers to customers who want to smoke that state "They are knowingly breaking the law by smoking in the bar and they don't care." A few bars in NY did that and I think they are in court now about the leagality of the "waivers"

[Surlethe]

Now pubs and clubs will lose tons of business.

Evidence, please.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's funny, because from the reports on the news and in the papers about the same bans in California, NY and Northern Ireland, they've actually shown increases in trade in most bars and pubs. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people who can't stand smoke will now visit such avenues.

And even if they didn't, where are the smokers going to go? They can't go anywhere but their own home for a pint, so sucks to be them. They either stamp it out, or shut up.

[LongVin]

It's funny, because from the reports on the news and in the papers about the same bans in California, NY and Northern Ireland, they've actually shown increases in trade in most bars and pubs. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people who can't stand smoke will now visit such avenues.

And even if they didn't, where are the smokers going to go? They can't go anywhere but their own home for a pint, so sucks to be them. They either stamp it out, or shut up.

At the beginning though I remember on the news they reported losses from the ban.

[RedImperator]

For what it's worth, I haven't stopped going to bars and restaurants when I visit New York, but I cut my time in them down drastically. I used to be able to spend three hours in a bar in Buffalo; now, I'm bored and ready to leave in 40 minutes. Less if it's a crowded bar and going out for a smoke will cost me my seat.

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, where it's still legal to smoke in bars, I can still put in three hours.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Man, you could SO never get away with this in America. But if you could I would actually have a reason to go out!

I am hypersenstive to cig smoke. Less then a few minuts of it in the air near me will send my eyes watering and get me red in no time. As a result I hate it when my BF drags me to the clubs (which he loves)

If ever thwere was a ban On smoking I have no doubt in the long term bussiness would improve dramatically.

[FSTargetDrone]

I'm hoping the state of Pennsylvania, or at the very least, Philadelphia, enacts smoking bans in restaurants and such. Having the stink of tobacco on me and my friends is not something we want when we go out. Philadelphia has a problem with air quality as it is, and public smoking doesn't help.

Sorry smokers, take it somewhere else.

[Alyeska]

Now pubs and clubs will lose tons of business.

Doubtful. Every place I've heard of that enforced a smoking ban has seen an increase in business at bars and clubs. The non-smokers cover the lost business from smokers.

[Col. Crackpot]

Smoking has been illegal in Rhode Island and Massachusetts for years now and the doom and gloom claims of bar owners about losing business never materialized. The bars and clubs in Boston and Providence and Newport are still packed every weekend. One odd side effect: after a night on the town you go home smelling like streetside sausage and pepper venders instead of stale cigarette smoke.

[Stuart Mackey]

Now pubs and clubs will lose tons of business.

Didnt happen in NZ.

[Gandalf]

Kudos to the Brits for doing this. Better for the health of the bar going and non smoking population.

[Faram]

Now pubs and clubs will lose tons of business.

Bullshit, they said the same about the pubs in Sweden, in my small suburbian the effect is the oppiside, now we have five pubs before the ban there wehere four of them.

And it is a much nicer feeling to come home and not stink of smoke from the clotes and the hair.

[dragon]

Now pubs and clubs will lose tons of business.

Bullshit, they said the same about the pubs in Sweden, in my small suburbian the effect is the oppiside, now we have five pubs before the ban there wehere four of them.

And it is a much nicer feeling to come home and not stink of smoke from the clotes and the hair.

Oh yeah it is so nice to beable to go to a bar and clubs and end up reakking like smoke. However its goin be a while before Germany goes the same route if eer.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Are there any sources for this? I don't doubt, but I get contradictory statistics and information. In a google search, I can't tell what statistics are correct. Several sources told me that businesses suffered 20% losses, but some businesses were helped, but others not.

I would appreciate any input or a reliable source, because I have three that say the opposite of one another.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: They seem to imply that businesses were hit hard and that only some benefited.

This is one, but I find fewer and fewer that praise it. Don't know how reliable this is.

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/28 ... 963367.php

[Keevan_Colton]

Tell me, did half the bars in Ontario go out of business in October 2001?

The article is a chronicling of the hyperbole thrown around by those opposed to the ban. There's a lot of "the sky is falling!" shit spanning nearly a decade and yet, civilization hasnt collapsed.

[Big Phil]

Washington State has a smoking ban on all indoor establishments. Nobody's produced a study showing the economic impact of this yet - it's too soon - but I doubt there will be much of one.

To give you an isolated case, my wife's bowling league lost two bowlers out of 50 because of the smoking ban. They were on a team of three (most teams have five people) and nobody wanted to join because they chain smoked. They were replaced within a week by four new bowlers, so the league went from nine full teams and one with only three members to ten teams each with at least five members.

[Quadlok]

Washington State has a smoking ban on all indoor establishments. Nobody's produced a study showing the economic impact of this yet - it's too soon - but I doubt there will be much of one.

To give you an isolated case, my wife's bowling league lost two bowlers out of 50 because of the smoking ban. They were on a team of three (most teams have five people) and nobody wanted to join because they chain smoked. They were replaced within a week by four new bowlers, so the league went from nine full teams and one with only three members to ten teams each with at least five members.

well, their have been a few business hit really hard because the legislation didn't include sufficient protection for businesses who make much of their revenue from indoor smoking (like Hooka and Cigar bars), and of course their is the issue of people just skipping over to Oregon, Idaho, or the nearest Reservation, which wouldn't be a problem in Britian.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Once again, I am not sure of the validity, but the majority of studies I have seen seem to criticise the "no damage" by giving statistics showing actual damage. Now, they could be lying; I do not know. Or they could just be misleading, but I have yet to see a source that provides much evidence otherwise. So I have to suspend my own judgement. I don't know whom to trust.

Frankly, this source seems to have a bias, but I don't think I can rule it out because of that entirely. One side says "the no-ban" studies are lying, the other side says the pro-ban studies are lying. How the hell do you know which is true if you have never had first hand experience?

http://www.pubcoalition.com
http://www.faac.ca/thefacts.htm

Now, for those in Canda, maybe you know, but I have no clue what the FAAC or Hospitality organization is. Some of their agument seem a bit specious and seem like an appeal to possible circumstances instead of actual, but others seem to purport actual losses, not potential.

Evidence of the negative economic consequences of a ban is overwhelming. FAAC research shows 76% of Ontario's licensed establishments believe a ban will have a negative impact on business. 46% believe it will result in layoffs. Brewers of Ontario numbers show that licensed beer sales - the backbone of pub and bar sales - fall off dramatically after a ban. In Ottawa, 60 bars and pubs out of 210 have closed since the smoking bylaw was implemented there. Politicians are saying they were flat out wrong in thinking the bars and pubs would rebound after a ban... they don't. In B.C., the impact of the 100% smoking bylaw in its short 80 day life included losses of $8 million to the hospitality industry and nearly 800 layoffs. Owners and managers of bars in New York say that business is off by as much as 40% and that they have been forced to lay off employees.

Myth #2

The 2002 KPMG study on the effects of the smoke-free by-law on the hospitality industry suggests 100% smoking bans in bars and pubs won't hurt business

* Fact: The study was inconclusive. Hard evidence clearly shows 100% smoking bans hurt bars and pubs and the people they employ.
The anti-tobacco lobby makes constant reference to a weak KPMG study done by the City of Ottawa in the wake of that municipality's misguided smoking ban as 'proof' that bans don't hurt business. Let's look at what the study really says:

"...it is very difficult to isolate any effect the smoke free by-law may have had on restaurant and bar sales. It appears bars and pubs have experienced a more difficult year than restaurants... we cannot rule out that other factors, including changing customer preferences and the smoke-free by-law may have impacted establishments in particular niches.

This vague conclusion is far from the 'hard evidence' claimed by the anti-tobacco lobby to justify a 100% smoking ban.

* Fact: Independent sales figures from the Brewers of Ontario show a 6% decline in licensed beer sales (over $1 million a month) since the Ottawa by-law came in to effect. This is a fact. The Brewers have similar numbers for every single municipality that has gone smoke free. This is a fact. Given that beer sales are the ultimate barometer of how well the bar and pub industry are doing, it is clear that smoking bans hurt that part of the hospitality industry. A recent survey of Ontario's licensed establishment reveals that 76% believe a ban will hurt business. Almost half (46%) believe a ban will lead to lay-offs. These are facts from the front lines, from the people who know the business better than anyone.



"I'm speaking on behalf of owners and workers in the bars and restaurant business. My partner and I were two of the hardest-working owners around. And our bar is closed now [as a result of the ban on smoking.] A place that has been running since the mid-1800s. Fourteen people lost their jobs at our bar."

Carla Hiebert


Now, I don't see how they go from beer sales to the cause being smoking. It could be other factors, the pro-ban studies seem to claim. They say that sales were on a decline anyway.

This one says the opposite of the above, but it looks more bloggy.

http://www.no-smoking.org/june03/06-20-03-1.html

This one claims that there's no link between a full ban and loss of jobs/revenue.

[CarsonPalmer]

Pubs and clubs would only lose business if there is a nearby area where smokers can go. Because these places do not exist in England, there will not be a significant business drop.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

True. I assume the full smoking ban would make a big difference in that problem. I don't know why they don't do that more often. What really is the point of a partial ban (that gives waivers) and those that only affect a given area. People will just leave to go somehere that allows it (as they have). Seems a waste.