The UK smoking ban went effect on July 1, 2007, and as a result, many pub owners have been forced to close down, sparking the beginning of the end of the traditional village local.
As a smoker, I don't have a problem with not being allowed to smoke indoors wherever I go. I am not a heavy smoker, and I don't smoke inside my own house. I am not ignorant to the fact that it's a huge pain for an allergy sufferer, it is generally unhealthy, and it smells. While it doesn't bother me to have someone smoking while I eat, I prefer my meals in a smoke free zone. As for the second hand smoke argument, I am of the school of thought that knows it's not good, but realizes that neither is exhaust from a car, and it takes continuous exposure to have a real impact on a non smoker's health. Spend a day walking around in London and blow your nose at the end of the evening. What comes out is black. There are other pollutants out there that no one is raising this much hell about and are just as, or even more dangerous than a couple of hours in a smoky pub could ever be.
So, yes, of course smoking is gross, stinky, and unhealthy. This isn't news. Where am I going with this again? Oh yeah...
The issue is that the government is telling people how they should run their businesses. It is government stating that smoking is legal, so long as you do it where we want you to do it. The owner of a pub cannot decide for himself whether smoking should be allowed in his own establishment. If one wishes to run a non smoking pub, that should be up to them, not some law. When the ban went into effect, business in pubs dropped drastically, ruining the livelihood of many hard working people.
Sure, smokers are still going to frequent pubs and other establishments where alcohol is served. There's alcohol there for the love of Pete, and we all have social lives! However, the businesses are still suffering as a result. As a smoker, if I have the choice between a pub that provides a nice outdoor area for me to smoke in and enjoy my drink and a pub that cannot or will not provide such an area, the latter is off my list because alcohol heightens the craving for cigarettes. I smoke less than half a pack a day, but ply me with a few drinks, and I will smoke double the amount. Even people who do not normally smoke will have the odd cigarette during a night out where heavy drinking is involved. If the weather is bad, as it often is in the UK, a pub that cannot afford to throw a few heaters outside or a small shelter will lose business, especially if the pub next door can provide heat and shelter. Sometimes it is not a matter of money. Space is at a premium in the UK, and the pub without a beer garden might as well just give up under the smoking ban. Many pubs have been forced to do so already.
Scottish pubs saw a 13% drop in business since their smoking ban was introduced, and that percentage is climbing. This may not seem like much, and there are those that claim this will even out, but when you run a business, that sort of drop in profits can be fatal and not everyone has time for things to "even out" when they have bills to pay.
The United States smoking bans are even worse for bar owners because they are not nationwide. In the city of Austin, after the ban was introduced within the city limits, the bars outside of city limits advertised themselves as smoking establishments, and left a lot of Austin businesses empty. Last I heard, this ban was being challenged by Austin business owners (unsuccessfully, no doubt) who feel that they have been shafted, and they have. When I lived in Austin, I did all my drinking in Cedar Park and Leander after the smoking ban was put into effect. I prefer to drink and smoke in comfort and was happy to travel an extra five miles to do it. Obviously, given the lawsuits to ban the smoking ban, so are a lot of people.
This is not a big whine about having to stand outside in the snow for a cigarette. A weird side effect of the smoking bans in the UK is that now, most people, non-smokers included, end up spending a good portion of their night socializing in the street outside the pub, which of course, pisses off the very people who insisted upon the ban in the first place. It is about the individual choices a business owner should have in order to do what is best for their business, as well as the customer's choice to frequent a pub based on the owner's smoking rules. Expand choices for business owner and customer, stop playing nanny, and chances are, more pubs will stay in business.
It is unfair to force pub owners into this position over a substance that is legal to begin with.
There does seem to be a bit of bad logic in this. I mean at first one of the big reasons was work place safety (i.e. the waitstaff should not be forced to inhale other people smokes in order to make a buck). But what about people who work in coal-mines, or grain elevators, or painting, etc. who all inhale bad things everyday. Of course they would choose not to--most likely--but it is a part of the job. Bars are not the same without a layer of smoke. Being a smoker in the past, yes beagle you are correct, cigarettes and alcohol go hand in hand. Much like cigarettes and a bad breakfast at a diner the night after drinking. I've said since the beginning that it should be the business who chooses to allow smoking or not; the non-smoker should have place they can go where they won't be assaulted by smoke and I'm sure some bar owner would be keen on supplying that place. But the smoker should also enjoy the freedom of having a cigarette or cigar while enjoying a tasty beverage. Long statement made short; it is common economic sense that any interference in the market by regulation throws a wrench in how the market works. If we want a market economy we have to let the market decide what needs to happen, not politicians.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell stated. I resent a government that makes personal decisions for the individual like this. I don't have a problem stepping outside if that's what the owner of the establishment prefers. It's his or her place, after all. But I want that decision to rest with the individual.
ReplyDeleteI also find it highly disturbing that this is the same government that gets loads of tax revenue out of smokers. Without the smoker, the National Health System here would probably be something along the lines of a Civil War era field hospital. OK, I'm exaggerating, but we put a lot of money into it, and fair enough. But to turn around and marginalize the smoker in this way after that is a bit more than annoying.
I fully see the logic in providing a safe place to work, but you've brought up a hugely important and glaring point that no one wants to acknowledge.
*sigh*