Saturday 5 December 2009

Smoking ~ No. 10 Just Says No

I wasn’t going to write on this subject again, having written about it exactly a week ago, but as it happens Number 10 has just responded to the petition to relax the smoking ban. Unsurprisingly the answer is ‘no’, but some of the arguments deployed lack credibility. It states, “Survey data, anecdotal evidence and reports in the media seem to indicate that the impact on the hospitality trade as a whole has been at worst neutral and in many cases positive.” Well, my own anecdotal evidence garnered by speaking to licensees about the ban suggests that it has adversely affected trade in pubs, and as I’ve said previously the ban is one of many factors contributing to pub closures.

Unlike some people, I don’t want either the outside bans that some anti-smokers demand or a relaxation of the current laws that the petitioners requested. I’m a non-smoker, not anti-smoking - I just dislike being enveloped in smoke, which is a different thing altogether. Having said that, I don’t think the Government is doing their case any favours by citing dodgy arguments that look as though they’ve been cobbled together on the back of an envelope, but then, as they’ve already enacted the laws which have to be obeyed, I suppose they just can't be bothered to show the petitioners the courtesy of a proper response.


  1. If you seek to deny smokers the right to associate in any enclosed "public" place, regardless of whether it will affect you in the slightest, then you ARE an antismoker.

  2. Who on Earth do you think you are to write such pompous nonsense while being too cowardly to identify yourself? I'm sure I recognise your bumptious style from other blogs. Most smokers I know actually like the present situation because they have discovered they too like clear air in pubs. Presumably they are anti-smoking smokers. I refer you Clive's comments on my posting of 28 November. No, I am not anti-smoking, but I don't want to share the habit, thank you, as I did for 35 years. Either that, or never go to the pub.

    If you'd actually read the posting, you'd realise I was merely reporting on the response to the petition.

  3. RedNev,
    You'll have to remember that for you and some others the issue here is merely that you do not like the smell of tobacco smoke.For smokers (and others) the issue is vastly greater.This assault on smokers' employment,medical access,housing,child custody and other rights has gone more than far enough.It should never have been started in the first place.This is why it is perceived that people get "excited".

    In your reply to Curmudgeon (Nov.28),you mentioned that the gov. had no intention of banning smoking in homes and prisons.It wasn't all that long ago that gov.s everywhere had no intention of banning smoking anywhere.They knew that there isn't any real risk and that previous anti-smoking campaigns/tobacco tax increases etc. had resulted in increased smoking,crime and cost.Most gov.s stated that they'd prefer to "educate not legislate".They called smoking bans a "slippery slope" because they knew,if they did this,that it would be later used to erode everyone's rights.This would include further attacks on smokers.(not smoking as some people would have you believe) Bans were enacted largely because pols. were coerced into doing so.The ban fanatics are demanding bans in homes,prisons,cars,parks,golf courses and everywhere else they can think of.Appallingly,they have even managed to do this in parts of North America.This will be coming soon to the U.K.etc.(it's already started).There is some hope that sanity will return however.For example,a Canadian Federal Court recently ordered the removal of smoking bans in prisons.The judge stated that they "go too far".(unconstitutional iirc) Because of the fanatics (we generally call them ratz-rabid anti-tobacco zealots) this is being appealed though.The amount of money wasted by them in frivolous lawsuits is staggering.The sums they waste overall is even greater.Just their high tobacco tax policy alone costs billions of dollars each year in Canada.The fanatics do not seem to care though,just as long as their funding is not cut.You should hear them scream if and when it is.

  4. I really don't accept your opinion that further bans, including in private houses, are likely to be imposed in Britain. That's my opinion ~ you have yours, and we can't prove it either way; so having both expressed our views, we can go no further with the debate.

    What happens in some other countries may or may not indicate what could happen here ~ another point neither of us can prove either way. You accuse others of being fanatical, but reading your words again, the phrase that keeps on springing to my mind is "conspiracy theorist." Sorry, but that's how it looks to me.


Comments, including disagreements, are welcome.
Abuse and spam are not and will be deleted straight away.
Comment moderation is installed for older posts.