Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Last orders: The death of the pub?

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 July 2008
THE traditional local pub is facing an "unprecedented threat" from soaring costs and stay-at-home drinkers, experts have warned, as a new report reveals beer sales in bars have fallen to their lowest level since the Great Depression.
Figures published today by the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) reveal beer sales in UK pubs fell 10.6 per cent in the past year.

Some 107 million fewer pints were sold between April and June this year than in the same period last year – a fall of 1.2 million pints a day.

The news follows estimates that as many as 350 pubs have closed in Scotland in the past two years, and has brought predictions of the "death" of traditional pubs across the country.

Shrinking consumer demand as a result of the credit crunch and cheap alcohol in supermarkets, plus rising taxes and licence fees and the smoking ban, have all been blamed for the downturn in the pub trade.

Ian Brocklebank, a director of the Campaign for Real Ale (Camra), said the growing gap in the price of alcohol between pubs and supermarkets was driving an increasing number of publicans out of business.

"There's no doubt the threat faced by traditional pubs is unprecedented, and it's a threat we are taking very seriously indeed," said Mr Brocklebank.

"The big price differential between supermarkets and pubs is a massive problem. Supermarkets are able to sell alcohol at almost loss-leader prices – there's no way pubs can do that."

Camra is now lobbying Westminster to ease the financial burden on publicans to help them to tempt drinkers back.

"There are issues that we are raising with the government around beer tax and the possibility of making locally-brewed ales exempt from VAT," Mr Brocklebank said.

"There are several local campaigns to keep the traditional British pub, but what we are lacking is a national approach."

He said gloomy predictions of the death of the local pub were not wide of the mark.

"I think it's already happening for many rural communities," he said. "We are seeing the death of the traditional local in some places. When a community pub closes down, what do people end up with? A holiday home. What benefit do people get from that?"

His comments appear to be backed up by the figures. According to the BBPA, 27 pubs a week shut up shop last year. That is the equivalent of four a day and a rate of closure seven times faster than in 2006 and 14 times faster than 2005.

Figures from Camra, meanwhile, suggest that 57 pubs are closing every month. There are just over 57,000 pubs in Britain today, compared with 69,000 in 1980.

Charles Pease, the owner of the Kinloch Hotel on Mull, is threatening to relinquish his drinks licence because of soaring fees – meaning his locals could face a 24-mile round trip for a drink.

He says it will cost him thousands of pounds to meet licence costs and comply with the need for training courses and a premises plan under new licensing laws, a heavy burden for a small business.

The Scottish Government says the Licensing (Scotland) 2005 Act, which will be fully operational by autumn 2009, aims to address under-age drinking and binge drinking by introducing a detailed premises licence to existing establishments.

But Mr Pease said: "It is nothing more than a cash cow for local government and an ill-considered burden that, should recession and decline in trade be an issue, will find more than several small enterprises electing not to renew their licences in the coming months.

"The last time I renewed my licence for the Kinloch Hotel, it cost me £93 for three years. But the licence is going up from £31 a year to £220 a year, and in the first year there are additional costs, which mean the business would be paying something like £2,500 to £3,000."

Colin Wilkinson, secretary of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA), said a multitude of factors were combining to turn the screw on pubs.

He said: "About 400 pubs have closed since the introduction of the smoking ban, but it's not just down to that. We have things like the rents, rates and fuel costs.

"But the main thing I would say is the price of alcohol in supermarkets. We have become a nation of take-home drinkers in Scotland, where we consume cheap alcohol from the big retailers. There are 759 supermarkets in Scotland, and they take 45 per cent of all alcohol sales in the country."

According to the BBPA, beer sales in supermarkets and shops are continuing to rise, with a 3.8 per cent increase compared with the same quarter last year.

Steve Mudie, president of the SLTA, added: "This is undoubtedly an extremely serious issue for the industry."

John Barclay, the secretary of Fife Licensed Trade Association, said he knew of a string of pubs that had closed in recent times.

"The price of beer in supermarkets is getting cheaper and cheaper. There's very little the pubs can do," he said.

Rob Hayward, the BBPA's chief executive, said: "Beer sales in pubs are now at their lowest level since the Great Depression of the 1930s – down seven million pints a day from the height of the market in 1979.

"We need a change of approach from the government. Brewing is a major industry, beer our national drink and pubs a treasured part of our national culture.

"Yet with further duty increases planned, the Treasury continues to see the brewing industry as a cash cow to be milked in future budgets. These falling tax revenues show that it's time for a rethink."



The full article contains 963 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Mr A Roy,

28/07/2008 00:24:56
I've not been in a pub or my local club since the start of the smoking ban, Funny how we were all told that pubs would have more patrons when the ban was introduced. Nice one Nu-Labour.
Look like the only Nu-labour voters left will be the members of ASH
2

2dogs in D.C.,

28/07/2008 00:43:25
Mr.Roy- That was my 1st thought,also.
3

,

28/07/2008 00:46:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 00:54:43

'HA HA HA HA' WHAT DID I TELL YOU ALL, WELL OVER A YEAR AGO ON THESE THREADS,?

THE PUBS WOULD DIE A DEATH!

AND 'AGAIN' I AM CORRECT!

NOW SOME MAY 'LISTEN' AND TAKE WHAT I SAY AS SERIOUS!
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 00:57:45

Here is a 'Link' to one of my predictions about this in this very paper, take a 'neb',....

http://business.scotsman.com/fooddrinkagriculture/4-pint-predicted-as-price.3590583.jp
6

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 01:06:32

Another Earlier Prediction, my comment 121, on this Scotsman News Thread,...

http://business.scotsman.com/scottishandnewcastle/Ban-on-smoking-to-cost.3348234.jp
7

Allan(handofgod137),

28/07/2008 01:13:23
Yep, smoking ban.
8

Julian.,

edinburgh 28/07/2008 01:14:32
Charles,

Partially right. These are national figures. It would be interesting to find out what the rate of closure was in the first year after the smoking ban in Scotland compared to the second year.

I suspect this is mainly down to the credit crunch and cheap booze in the supermarkets rather than the smoking ban. All the smokers I know still go out as often as they ever did. Have you not noticed that it's only been in the last few months that pubs have started going out of business in Edinburgh?
9

Continental,

28/07/2008 01:17:49
#1 - you can't blame Labour on the smoking ban, it was introduced to Parliament by Stewart Maxwell, the current Minister for Communities and Sport
10

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 01:23:33

Allan ~7,

Correct!!
11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 01:28:11

Julian ~8,

Not Correct! the economic climate has nothing to do with, sales for the "Pubs"

Legislation takes time to 'kick in' to have the overall effects.

My Educated Prediction was true!
12

Julian.,

edinburgh 28/07/2008 01:52:10
Charles,

If your mortgage, utility, food and fuel bills are going through the roof don't you think some people might cut back a few pints in the week? Every day we see people being interviewed on the news saying they are cutting back on this and that.

As for legislation taking time to have an effect, the figures in the above article show that pubs in the whole of GB have only started closing in the last year. The smoking ban in England only started late last year. If it takes time to have an effect why are they closing already?

As I said, it would be interesting to see the sales figures for pubs in Scotland in the first and second years following the ban. Does anyone know what they are?

13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 02:02:32

Julian ~12,

You are trying to make 'justifications' for the demise of the Great British Pubs!

The 'Truth' IS, 'THE PUB' was for the 'Working Men'

'A PIE, A PINT, A FAG' A CHAT'!

All four went together, to keep 'Pubs Alive' I suspect in the days of War and previous Depressions!

Two World wars and numerous Depression's, The Pubs Survived!

The 'NAIL IN THE COFFIN' IS DUE TO ONE FACT!

AND ONE 'FACT' ONLY!!

'THE SMOKING BAN'!
14

Vandala,

28/07/2008 02:18:46
Ummm...my local pub is packed seven nights a week with generally nice people. In fact I'm just back from there now. Death of the cr*p pub more like...
15

Julian.,

edinburgh 28/07/2008 02:34:43
Charles,

So the smoking ban is only one of the nails. I agree, but it's probably not the final one. Lack of disposable income is surely reponsible for that.

But as I say, let's settle the argument. If you say it's all down to the smoking ban then pub sales fwould have plummeted after March 2006 in Scotland and stayed at that level ever since. Let's have the figures.

#14 makes a good point. Those pubs that have folded were pretty mediocre anyway.
16

Julian.,

edinburgh 28/07/2008 02:42:19
Charles,

Don't listen to me, hear it from the horses mouth:-

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=60308&c=1

In summary, what it says is

(1) The smoking ban has had an effect but the credit crunch is a bigger influence.
(2) 76% of the public support the ban.
(3) Of 1500 publicans surveyed, 64% support the ban.
17

Maisie from Morningside,

28/07/2008 02:44:37
Businesses in the hospitality area don't just fold overnight.
I too suspect the smoking ban as the main culprit, the recent economic downturn is merely the last nail in the coffin.
It's a pity the pub workers were promised a healthier working environment- instead they've got NO working environment!
18

Guga II,

Rockall 28/07/2008 02:47:24
Apart from the smoking ban, and the refusal of the government to allow people freedom of choice, are not most of the pubs owned by breweries? That being the case, they could easily drop their prices to compete with supermarkets.
19

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 02:47:41

Maisie ~17,

What you speak, IS the uppermost Truth!
20

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 02:52:02


Five 'Pints' For £5.00 in the warmth of you Home, and have that 'Fag' when ever you want, without having to be 'religated' out to the, 'Freezing Cold'!

WHICH ON WOULD YOU CHOOSE,?

ONE DOES NOT NEED TO BE AN 'IDIOT'! TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!
21

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 02:57:21

OR in the, 'NOW' PUBS!

£20.00 FOR FIVE 'PINTS',..

And get 'Thrown Outside' For a 'Fag' and to suffer,..

'Frost Bite',...??

'GET REAL'

THE BRITISH PUBLIC, HAVE, "GOT REAL", HENCE,..

THE DEATH OF THE PUBS!!
22

Statsman,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 03:40:29
I stopped going to pubs when the Nazi smoking ban came in. I can smoke at home and the Stasi police state can't touch me. I'd rather do that than the state humiliate me like a child just because I am an honest tax paying citizen that likes a cigarette.

Nu Labour can get lost.
23

Statsman,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 03:42:24
16 Julian

Carry on Lord Haw Haw.
24

,

28/07/2008 03:46:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

Statsman,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 03:47:17
21 Charles Linskaill

You are quite right. Adults being treated like children is not a recipe for success. It should be remembered that people go to the pub to escape their working lives. If their pubs turn out to be regulated work environments, it kills any pretence of escapism.
26

,

28/07/2008 03:49:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Statsman,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 04:01:00
The whole smoking ban is built on a lie. It is an evil abuse of science and more correctly, statistics. If anyone believe passive smoking is risky based on the evidence, then they would, by logic, be trying to ban whole milk and mouthwash since the 'link' with lung cancer is at least two times higher.

It is a testament to fascism and the pointlessness of the likes of freedom hater Maureen Moore that we are here. She lied and lied and lied until Nu Labour took her seriously. Her husband died so we all have to suffer. What a petty sad individual.
28

peter e,

usa 28/07/2008 04:01:02
See my comments about your fight to stop a bloke from CARRYING A knife. I told you when you have to have big brother protect you from a guy with a knife, you loose your manhood. So then Big Brother taxes the hell out of pubs, (they serve stuff with ALCOHOL in it), and stop some creep that shouldn't be in a pub in the first place, from second hand smoke, by banning smoking.

Well, what do you expect.

Scotland is no fun anymore.
29

Paul in Oz,

Helensburgh 28/07/2008 04:42:29
Oh well pubs are going to have flat sales until the younger generation (who don't grow up with cigarettes thrust upon them in public places) start frequenting the pubs of Scotland and the oldies die off because of lung cancer

Good riddance I say!

Just to get back to it those who think smoking in a place where food is sold is acceptable, you are disgusting and don't deserve to be let out in public!
30

Julian.,

edinburgh 28/07/2008 04:52:31
Charles,

A bit melodramatic don't you think. Death of the pubs? I walk out my front door and within a few minutes see dozens of pubs doing a thriving trade. A few pubs have gone to the wall as a result of the smoking ban. Well so what. A few thousand are still happily open for business every day in the streets of Edinburgh.
31

Julian.,

edinburgh 28/07/2008 04:57:14
statsman,

Wasn't Lord Haw Haw a propogandist who made claims without any credible source to back them up?
32

Robert Cassidy,

Denver Colorado 28/07/2008 05:40:54
The basic factor ailing the pubs applies to the whole UK.....TAX !.....Taxes are destroying the UK...Most taxes and most laws should be abolished..If the vast and ostentatious wealth of the Royal family were confiscated by way of replacement , the people of Britain would be free of confiscatory and oppressive tax burdens
Oil royalties alone would suffice to provide the people of an independent Scottish Republic with unlimited free beer .( provided illegal immigration from Ireland were adequately controlled !
33

Anonym,

28/07/2008 06:08:08
#25 OPINION - you are a chump.

#30 The smoking ban also prevents smoking in places where food is NOT sold. Reasonable?

#33 The Royal Family do not cost the UK much at all. What you call their 'ostentatious wealth' probably would not pay for 10 minutes of tax relief for the UK.
34

Rabhairt,

Cannons Creek AUSTRALIA 28/07/2008 06:28:38
The death of the UK pubs would be a tragedy, my 30 year old son returned recently from the Uk and absolutely raved about the English and Scottish pubs (and the beer and ales too)he said the atmosphere inside the pubs was wonderful and his only negative comment was the prices, but after a couple of pints he didn't give a damn; here in Aussie the pubs are full of gambling machines, they have strict dress codes, brain dead security guards and it is difficult to find an old fashioned pub in the city and outer city areas.
A lot of tourists go to the UK just to see and visit the pubs some of which go back a couple of hundred , years, OH LORD, GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY SPLASH.
35

Pocket Dictionary,

28/07/2008 06:51:22
And I couldn't go to a pub before the smoking ban because of the impact cigarette smoke has on my asthma.
36

Andrah,

Embrugh 28/07/2008 07:04:34
28# The "science" you appear to support seems to be in the "School Bus found on the Moon" category. Why can't some people understand that the majority of us do not want smokers to spew their noxious,irritant, carcinogenic filth all over them in enclosed,public places. Smokers would likewise be outraged if someone walked into the pub and pi**ed all over the back of their clothes, or even on to the carpet. It is not "Nazi" to apply sensible risk controls in shared environments to address health, safety or hygiene matters.
37

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 07:07:53
Wow. Smokers seem a most unpleasant and angry collection of people. Some of them seem bordering on sociopathic, so I can't imagine them going to pubs anyway, and the thought of them being allowed to get drunk in public is very frightening.
38

terry osser,

morden 28/07/2008 07:13:40
tax is the problem--80% of pub income goes in tax
39

walter,

28/07/2008 07:18:55
There are many acceptable reasons that pubs and clubs are seeing a drop in sales or closing.
The one reason that is not an acceptable excuse for these events is the smoking ban.
We all know that the evidence produced was questionable at the least and any scientist that spoke against the effects of passive smoking was ostracized.
Richard Doll was a perfect example, hailed as the world most authoritative expert in the effects of smoking he was shunned after stating “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me” in 2001.

In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not statistically significant.

The ill effects of passive smoking are still intuition rather than scientific fact, and billions have been spent by the medical institutions in pursuing this illusory myth” (British Medical Journal, 1 August 2004).

It is well known that there is no real evidence that passive smoking has a serious effect on non smokers but the ban was brought in anyway using passive smoking and it will not be accepted that it is to blame for any drop in sales or closures of establishments
40

Lissa,

California 28/07/2008 07:23:07
We're having the same problem out here, with the anti-smoking laws tanking the local businesses.
Plus, it's not fun anymore.
41

Boy Wonder,

28/07/2008 07:39:33
94-year-old New Age prophet of doom, Chuckles Linskaill is only partially right. While smoking ban has had an obvious effect, you cannot dismiss other Draconian anti-drinker measures taken by the authorties of the country and cities.

The No-drink-No-drive one is obvious ... and indeed welcome.

The multiplicity of CCTV all over the place, whiche deters the heavily drink-fuelled fighters, vandals, thieves, muggers and sex-traders!

And the worst one of all ... the enactment of the vicious anti-vertical drinking campaign.

Face it ... this Labour Govt has lost the plot and turned into Big Brother with a vengeance, with the connivance of the other parties in various measures throughout the entire island!

Oh yeah ... the ranting Churches haven't helped either!
42

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 07:40:11
Out comes Charles Linskaill with the pro smoking lobby, they don't even read the experienced quotes above, just prattle own inaccurate lines. I worked with Holsten, we knew 7 yeas ago beer was on the decline in bars and was a non reversible path due to a combination of factors - costs of running a pub, people concerned about health, competition from supermarkets and competition from wine.


Above Colin Wilkinson, secretary of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA), said a multitude of factors were combining to turn the screw on pubs.

He said: ".....the smoking ban, but it's not just down to that. We have things like the rents, rates and fuel costs. "But the main thing I would say is the price of alcohol in supermarkets.


So the pro smokers ignore the real cause as quoted and focus on their pet little thing.

The guy from Camra too does not blame smoking Ian Brocklebank, a director of the Campaign for Real Ale (Camra), said the growing gap in the price of alcohol between pubs and supermarkets was driving an increasing number of publicans out of business.

People I know are more likely to go to a non smoke filled pub than before but they are not beer drinkers in the main.

This persistent twisting of stories by contributers above to promote the pro smoking lobby is is pathetic.
43

conservative,

Fife 28/07/2008 07:40:56
I don't think the smoking ban has been the main cause of the slowdown. The cost of a pint whould put many people off (it puts me off!). Also the rise in club-pubs with their drink-till-you-drop cut-price promotions don't help.
44

SouthernSkye,

28/07/2008 07:44:15
These days it is a choice between a drink for ones car or a drink for ones-self.The former gets you to work and the latter can keep you away!
No smoking, vast increases in fuel and household bills, foodstuffs increasing, tax increases (no 10p tax band), cheap supermarket booze. It all adds up to less disposable income. I would think cinemas and theatres are also taking a hit, as are Hotels and tourism (reported elsewhere in The Scotsman).
Poeple ain't got any spare cash!
45

Lee Hutchison,

fife 28/07/2008 07:46:01
while there may be some arguement as to the effects of passive smoking, there is one thing that no-one can argue with....smoking stinks.....smokers stink......pubs smell better without you :)
However I don't think that having gangs of smokers at every pub door encourages individuals to want to run their gauntlet in order to get a pint.
Supermarkets are winning because people would rather drink at home than put up with an unpredictable atmosphere in a ned filled pub which charges high prices for the privilege.

Oh and btw Charles....your opinions don't suddenly become fact just because you decide to TYPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS
46

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh. 28/07/2008 08:00:44
Pubs have overpriced themselves for years,even before the smoking ban became effective.
47

Mike Masterton,

28/07/2008 08:37:43
I'm a non smoker, but banning smoking from pub's was / is a nonsense, and taking the piano away from the "Firkin" pubs was another mistake.
We never know what we had 'till it's gone !
And the gready government of course.
48

Ferg,

Bridge of Allan 28/07/2008 08:38:59
The smokers still go to the pubs as you see them hanging outside but you also get a lot more people who will happily go to a bar as they don't stink of smoke the next day. The decline is due to high prices (especially soft drinks) and of course economic effects. Discounted alcohol in the supermarkets is also a factor.
49

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 28/07/2008 08:46:41
What a well thought out piece of reporting. How on earth can even the Scotsman equate empty pubs with cheap supermarket booze and then use a pub on Mull as an example? If you include the price of a Calmac return fare to Oban, the supermarket drink is very expensive indeed.

#48
It's actually the breweries that have overpriced their "wet" sales. The markup on a pint of beer is nowhere near the markup on a measure of spirits.

The death-knell was sounding long before the smoking ban. Over-regulation, the cost of taxis and many other factors were already killing off the trade - the smoking ban was merely a coup de grace.
50

voltaire's janny,

28/07/2008 08:49:15
Who cares?

There are plenty of pubs. With fresh air too. So a few go to the wall - that's commerce. A pub needs to supply more than drink to keep folks coming in. Atmosphre, craic, catering, sport on tv, efficent courteous service etc. The public know a good pub when they're in it and such bars are thriving.

And if the rural pub in Englandshire is under threat, then that's a few less drunks on the road too.

The saddos staying at home with their tinnies to save a few coppers are just Billy-no-mates or smokers.

51

Nellie,

Liverpool 28/07/2008 08:58:26
I don't have the figures to back me up but my observations are that the smoking ban has had little effect in the Liverpool and West Lancashire areas. The smokers just step out side for their puff, and some of the pubs have even given them shelters (even HEATED shelters in some places) so they can have a smoke without the fags getting soggy in the rain. Just a little creativity rather that laying down with legs in the air... or is the smoking ban law different North o' the border? (Have to admit it's a while since I've been ... but look out, "I'll be back!")
52

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 28/07/2008 09:07:24
#1,2,4,7 etc...As a non-smoker ,I think its the smoking ban as well. The smokey smell has gone ,to be replaced with sweaty feet and B.O.
#53
"Over-regulation, the cost of taxis and many other factors were already killing off the trade - the smoking ban was merely a coup de grace."
Agreed
#54
"The saddos staying at home with their tinnies to save a few coppers are just Billy-no-mates or smokers."
Maybe for you , but for the rest of us i who do actually have friends and a life it makes perfect sense ,if you can watch the match on satalite/cable get a carry out and make some snacks etc, you know make a bit of an effort, its much nicer. I end up standing outside the pub with my smoker mates anyway , so what's the point going in the first place if I'm going to stand outside in the wind and rain?
Nice one government, destroying a seemingly indestructable business, that most of us can use responsibily. Must be great for the tourist trade too.
53

First Rule of Anarchy,

28/07/2008 09:15:07
It's going to be 30 degrees here in London today.
I'll be in a pub with a beer garden:-)
54

The Honest Lad,

Musselburgh 28/07/2008 09:30:22
You can still smoke outside a pub in open space. At least I am free from being killed by other peoples filthy habits. An intresting stat would be as to whether the country actually drinks less? This would be a good thing and potentially reduce a burden on the NHS.
55

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 28/07/2008 09:33:05
#58
Depends where you live.

For many of us, less pubs = no pub.
No pub = no social community interaction.

All too few people get out and mingle with their neighbours - they don't go to the shinty, they don't go to church, they just stay a home watching a bunch of foreign wooftahs indulging in amateur dramatics on a football field in the centre of Glasgow, Manchester, etc.
56

James Donald,

Newbridge 28/07/2008 09:40:50
#20 Charles Linskaill,Edinburgh - Here is the weather forecast for Edinburgh for the next 5 days from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?id=1808
No freezing cold so very little chance of "frost bite".
Hard to think what exactly you are going to "suffer" by going outside for a cigarette - when the weather is good most drinkers at my local are outside anyway.
57

Who?,

28/07/2008 09:47:57
I've heard it all now- pubs closing due to the western credit crunch- lol!

I for one welcome less pubs. Too many of the "traditional" pubs were dirty, rodent infested hell holes filled with men and women who were drinking themselves into an early grave.

In fact can i reccommend the closure of another pub: The Golden Rule in Fountain Bridge. This pub, its manager and its patrons are absolutly awful! If you try and walk past it you get showered with fag ash and butts. If you ask the punters to watch what their doing they just abuse you. When i stayed in the street a few years ago we had drunks from the pub vomiting and urinating in the stairway. I went in and spoke to the then manager about the state of the street, what was happening in the local flats and the punters smoking etc and i was litterly told to bu44er off- not interested!

Its a pitty that some small town or niche pubs are closing especially when you consider some that are still open.
58

James Donald,

Newbridge 28/07/2008 09:48:27
#55 Nellie,Liverpool - Smokers are well catered for North of the Border but that will not stop the "Wheezy Brigade" moaning that they can't enjoy a smoke in the pub with their pint and have the enormous burden of having to get off their behinds to indulge their habit.
CAMRA may lobby the government to help publicans but ending the smoking ban is not going to happen. Smokers will just have to live with it or stay at home with their supermarket-bought tinnies.
59

Astarte,

Giffnock 28/07/2008 09:52:24
I was in Philadelphia recently and lunched at a Downtown Bar&Lounge. There is no ban on smoking but customers were prohibited from smoking at the Buffet and requests for them to be considerate of Non-smokers in all other areas. Such a civilized approach to a very divisive question and it works just fine and all are happy.
60

Metal Mickey,

28/07/2008 10:11:26
Mr Linskaill

You make a lot of 'good' points but what's with 'all' the 'quotation marks'!

AND CAPITAL 'LETTERS'.

Yours 'etc.'
61

Rabbies Wee Bruthir,

28/07/2008 10:11:57
The Draconian anti-smoking laws in Scotland are going to get worse.

A friend of mine, who has just recently bought a pub, told me that under the new Licensing Act LA's have even more powers over 'smoking in public places'.

For example, you can currently go outside and have a fag, or go into a 'beer garden' if you are lucky enough to have one in your local, but the new act gives the power to LA's to class the 'beer Garden as part of the 'Licensed Premises' and therefore can enforce the ban on smoking, even in an 'unenclosed public place'. There is also provision to prevent customers from smoking with 1.2 metres of the premises, i.e. not the doorway, but the premises, you therefore have to be standing no less than 1.2 metres (4ft approx in old money) away from the building.


In fact one pub in my area has already been shown a 'yellow card' for allowing it's patrons to smoke in it's 'beer garden'.

Freedom, freedom my aris, dictatorial, brainless thugs!!!!
Oh and for the deranged non-smokers, if one can filter Nuclear contam, an biological and nerve contam from the atmosphere, then the same can be done with tobacco smoke, and guess what it would cost less than £5000 on average to fit these 'air scrubbers' into existing pubs.

Perhaps another reason for the 'smoking ban' is more sinister, i.e. the severing of communications between like minded souls.
After all the 'smoke filled 'coffee houses' of the 18th century, led to most of the scientific,political and cultural innovation that has become known as the 'age of enlightenment'!!
Not much enlightenment left with this load of sycophantic idlers, who introduced this illegal act.

On a point of order, although it was an SNP MP who 'introduced' the original bill, it didn't have the backing of the then NuLab/Fibdem administration, Then Black Jack during the election campaign before it was introduced, said that no way was he going to introduce a 'blanket ban on Smoking in Public Places, once he was re-elec
62

Rabbies Wee Bruthir,

28/07/2008 10:12:29
cont; from #67

On a point of order, although it was an SNP MP who 'introduced' the original bill, it didn't have the backing of the then NuLab/Fibdem administration, Then Black Jack during the election campaign before it was introduced, said that no way was he going to introduce a 'blanket ban on Smoking in Public Places, once he was re-elected the Nu Labour/Fibdems introduced the bill, and held 'secret' consultations with the public, and the rest as they say is history, we know have an illegal act that is suppressing the Law of Scotland, and no-one , save a very few of us, with the bottle to fight them on it.

This act is against the Human rights enshrined in law in Scotland, it prevents that most fundamental freedoms, the freedom of association..
63

vorlic,

edinburgh 28/07/2008 10:16:58
the decline of the pub.this NU LABOUR is just turning us into a bunch of slaves,less and less freedom,working just to pay the tax man and over inflated prices for any enjoyment we have left.and of course keep the divi up for the shareholders.soon we will have no choices left to us.as for the anti smoking brigade. what % drive and spew out toxic fumes from their exhaust pipes.of course this acceptable for them.to heck with the rest of us poor mortals.
64

Yeah1,

28/07/2008 10:17:07
1. the smoking ban is just one of a number of factors that are leading to the closure of pubs, it is not the main reason

2. Personally I agree totally with the smoking ban, whether passive smoking causes or not it is still disgusting to have to breathe in other people's smoke and to go home at the end of the night stinking of other people's cigarettes.

3. Looking back in a few years time people will think it unbelievable that anyone was even allowed to smoke in pubs or restaurants - just as today it seems ludicrous that people were once allowed to smoke on planes and buses and in cinemas and shopping centres.
65

Down with everything,

28/07/2008 10:18:04

I am pleased with the ban as i gave up smoking Jan 1st (due to having to stand outside amongst other things) and not seeing people smoke makes it a lot easier.

I agree that many pubs have gone bust, but all businesses are suffering at the moment and those at the luxury end ( i.e. not necessity) will suffer first, look at golf club membership for example, also in serious decline.
People are understandably tightening their belts and these businesses are litmus paper for the general state of affairs.
66

Down with everything,

28/07/2008 10:20:03

I also firmly believe that if smoking is as bad as the govt make it out to be then why don't they ban it?

same goes with booze.

wonder what BAT, Tennents and others would say to this.

OH, and the govt would go bust overnight.
67

JohnBowes,

28/07/2008 10:22:30
Working class people are more likely to smoke. Thus it was this group who lost out in terms of the smoking ban in pubs. They are now staying at home and thus pubs are closing.

People are NOT smoking less. They are NOT drinking less.

The smoking ban HAS led to pubs closing. So otherwise is ridiculous.

As for people who say they are not being "killed by other peoples smoke", what about the likes of car fumes? The smoke that comes out of the back of YOUR car like?
68

Liz,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 10:23:05
Two issues here.

1) The price of drinks in most pubs is the main problem - it cost me £3.20 for a pint of moderate lager (that despite the fancy name is brewed here in Edinburgh) on my last trip to the pub.

2) The smoking ban has had an effect but I would suggest this is mostly in pubs that still (18months later!) have a rather unpleasent smell of the mens toilets/overpowering smells of disinfectant to get rid of above odour.

The nicer bars that do decent food, and do not rip us off for drinks are now much improved by the smoking ban. Regardless of if passive smoking causes cancer, being able to go out at night and not come back smelling like an ashtray is far better than it used to be.
69

JohnBowes,

28/07/2008 10:25:38
Of course, pub owners have been shafting patrons for years. I recently went into a pub and it was nearly a quid for a packet of crisps. beyond belief. People simply don't go back to these places. And the price of a coke for example was extortionate. WHY would we pay such prices? Only mugs do that. WHY make these people rich?
70

JohnBowes,

28/07/2008 10:28:19
Yes indeed. Who want to go into a pub that is stinking with p*sh? BUT who wants to go into some middle class wine bar where they are all "ya ya" at each other either - showing off in an exceptionally phony mode? These people are tommy tankers.
71

MRab2,

28/07/2008 10:29:13
#44 Actually, that would be pro-choice, pro-smoking is inaccurate. Anti-choice, for your side of the fence isn't inaccurate, nor is anti-freedom.

Your particular brand of bull doesn't explain why regardless of where or when a smoking ban is brought into force a sudden slowdown in the hospitality industry follows. This is true the world over, even in California where the ban was brought in first. iirc the hospitality industry there shrunk year on year for at least five years before growth started again.

The quality of a law can be determined by the quality of the people who support it, I suggest anyone on the fence look at some of the comments from the anti-freedom camp, particularly the one about smokers being "scum of the earth" and ask yourself if these are the people you really want to ally yourself with.
72

Americanbob,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 10:40:51
#65 Astarte,
Don't know how "recently" you were in Philadelphia but there has been a smoking ban enforced throughout the city (not just in Center City either) for over a year now. It was set up by the Mayor and the city council and appears not to have affected the bars much, I accept that you can still smoke in bars outwith the city precincts (for the moment) but you did mention "downtown"
73

Steve_HMFC,

28/07/2008 10:41:02
I can't believe the arrogance of smokers, they think its out of order that they are asked not to pollute the rest of us by just stepping outside..

Not much of an excuse for people staying away from pubs.. YOU CAN STILL SMOKE YOU JUST HAVE TO STEP OUTSIDE!!...omg: end of the world isn't it??

The majority of pubs suffering are ones that havnt cleaned their toilets in 20 years or given the place a lick of paint.. they cant use smoking ban as an excuse for being a sh**-tip. Pubs and bars that have renovated are doing well.

Also, plenty comments about Labour, but this was a law that had cross party consensus. In Holyrood, the vote was passed 97 to 17, with the Tories only voting against because they wanted exceptions for Theatre Stages and Speicalist Tobacco shops. In Westminster, both Labour and Tories were split on the issue.
74

Pomodora,

Gravesend 28/07/2008 10:43:01
#65 Astarte..sounds great but it would never work in this country where our pubs are full of Lager louts and foul mouthed uncouth punters.
75

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 10:47:36
There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the mind-numbingly stupid smoking ban is to blame, secondly, the tide of rediculous, brain-dead propaganda about drinking has started to take effect.

#80:

And I can't believe the arrogance of rabid anti-smokers such as you. Tobacco smoke DOES NOT "pollute you". It causes you NO HARM WHATSOEVER. There is also absolutely no valid argument against segregated (indoor) areas.

It is totally unacceptable and unreasonable to "ask us to step outside", especially when the weather is inclement, which it is most of the time in Scotland. If you want to take that kind of attitude then I would be quite justified in saying to you that if you don't like tobacco smoke then YOU can be equally as well asked to step outside---preferably permanently.
76

Yeah1,

28/07/2008 10:51:26
#80

"I can't believe the arrogance of smokers, they think its out of order that they are asked not to pollute the rest of us by just stepping outside"

Exactly - why should we have to breathe in the fumes of these addicts every time they want a cigarette?

Regardless of whether passive smoking causes cancer the stink of cigarettes and having to breathe in their smoke is bad enough on its own to warrant a ban.

Would these people complaining about the smoking ban in pubs also wish to see smoking allowed on planes, buses, trains and in cinemas and shopping centres again?
77

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 10:52:17
#70:

"...just as today it seems ludicrous that people were once allowed to smoke on planes and buses and in cinemas and shopping centres."

It doesn't to me. It seems ludicrous that we are not allowed to do so---especially in these days where efficient and (relatively) cheap air filtration systems are available that could completely solve the problem for those who whinge about a little bit of smoke.
78

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 10:52:53
#82. Go outside and have a cigarette and chill.
79

Yeah1,

28/07/2008 10:58:29
#82

"And I can't believe the arrogance of rabid anti-smokers such as you. Tobacco smoke DOES NOT "pollute you". It causes you NO HARM WHATSOEVER."

Actually there is substantial evidence that tobacco smoke does cause considerable harm - deniers like you are merely embarassing yourselves by arguing otherwise.

Anyway regardless of whether passive smoking causes harm - having to breathe in other people's smoke and to suffer while addicts like you selfishly feed your addiction is reason enough for a smoking ban - personally I would banning smoking outside too and force you to only do it in your own home.

Would you also like to see a return to smoking on planes and buses and in cinemas and shopping centres?
80

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 10:58:38
"Would these people complaining about the smoking ban in pubs also wish to see smoking allowed on planes, buses, trains and in cinemas and shopping centres again?"

In some cases, yes. If I am on a local bus, the fact that I'm not allowed to smoke doesn't really bother me. The same goes for short distance train journeys.

However, If I am on a long-haul bus, train or particularly an aircraft, where you are herded like sheep anyway (but that is a different argument) the provision for smokers should be made COMPULSORY.

Having smoking carriages on trains doesn't have any effect whatsoever on non-smokers. The last time I was on a long-distance train, I went to the smokng carriage to find that with the more efficient ventilation installed there, the air was actually much cleaner than in the non-smoking carriages---which smelld of sweat, farts, stale sandwiches and all other kinds of things.

Regardless of whether "passive smoking" exists (it does not in any case) and regardless of people whinging about a little bit of tobacco smoke (they should get a life) there is absolutely NO valid argument to stop people from smoking as and when they wish to do so.
81

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 11:05:13
#86:

"Actually there is substantial evidence that tobacco smoke does cause considerable harm"

And what, pray tell, what that "substantial evidence" consist of? According to official records NO-ONE has died from "passive smoking". NO-ONE has suffered a life-threatening disease from "passive smoking" and NO-ONE has even been proven to have suffered a nuisance but not life threatening condition through "passive smoking".

If you think you know different, then lets see you give us all some HARD evidence (as opposed to junk science) that proves your point. Write me a list of 5 people who have been killed by passive smoking in the last 6 months. If you can't do that simple thing then please refrain from boring us all with supposition and propaganda.
82

Steve_HMFC,

28/07/2008 11:07:24
#82
"Tobacco smoke DOES NOT "pollute you". It causes you NO HARM WHATSOEVER."

a) It causes cancer.
b) It causes people to cough excessively, and not nicely, especially for people with chest infections or asthma
c) It is one of the worst smells, ranked higher than dustbin rubbish, only slightly lower than excrement
d)It makes your clothes stink. You might have only gone to a pub to watch the fitba, not even had a drink, but you need to change when you get home even though you only wore that shirt and those jeans for a couple of hours.
e)If people didnt smoke, hospitals would be able to treat people with real non-self inflicted illnesses, with waiting lists and budgets benefitting.
f)A lot of Smoke in an enclosed area also harms your eyes.

"If you want to take that kind of attitude then I would be quite justified in saying to you that if you don't like tobacco smoke then YOU can be equally as well asked to step outside---preferably permanently"

Im not doing anyone any harm being inside though, thats the difference.
And what about people who work in bars and clubs, should they step outside every time you light-up? Think there would be a longer wait at the bar in that case.
83

Liz,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 11:09:44
#87
I do not care about the effects of passive smoking. What I primarily care about is coming home from the pub sticking of stale smoke. It is not an attractive smell. If you are happy going around smelling like an ashtray that is fine for you, but I do not understand why you cannot accept anyones point of view who prefers to go out of an evening and not come back stinking of other peoples smoke.
84

Yeah1,

28/07/2008 11:19:25
#91

"Petrol head you are an addict and other people dont want to smell of your addiction."

Quite right - why should other people have to breathe in the smoke these addicts cause just because they are too selfish and lazy to go outside?
85

He's A Rocket,

28/07/2008 11:22:15
Just thought I'd let you all know how great I feel these days....and why

Stopped smoking because I refused to go and stand in the street, and wasn't allowed to take my beer with me

Stopped going to the boozer because I wasn't enjoying my beer without a smoke - and it's too dear anyway, and taxi fares are a joke

Because I'm not at the boozer I'm eating less pakora and kebabs

Virtually stopped drinking all together now to keep the cravings for a smoke away.

Packed in coffee for the same reason

Thanks New Labour knobs - I feel great, I'm loaded and bored to fcuknig tears.........
86

The Honest Lad,

Musselburgh 28/07/2008 11:22:54
#87 is your real name Robert Sole?
87

N B,

28/07/2008 11:24:23
One of the main functions of pubs was to provide adults a place to go to get away from their kids. These days with kids spending most of their time making beeping noises in their rooms, this problem no longer exists ergo the decline in pub usage.
88

brian gamble,

bedford 28/07/2008 11:46:00
don't blame supermarkets selling cheaper booze for the decline in the pub trade, its the greed of the pubs and the dictatorship of new labour that's the cause.
89

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 28/07/2008 11:46:04
Charles Linskaill

Good morning to you and yours and you "seem" to be in a somewhat smug mood today with patting yourself on your back with what you perceive as confirmation of your predictions that the smoking ban would harm the pub trade.

As other posters have indicated, that is just part of the problem.

Here in Canada, when they banned smoking from pubs, bars and restaurants business went UP because families could bring their children and themselves into restaurants without being choked and possible killed by "second-hand smoke".

There was a period of adjustment and the owners of restaurants, pubs, and bars are now content that there sales have increased and they are getting more custom from families and non-smokers.

THe smoking ban is just part of the problem as the article indicates.

You and your DYW have a glorious day.
90

Clive Hamblin,

28/07/2008 11:50:25
Because I'm a diabetic and refuse to drink & drive, I tend to want lemonade or even a weak shandy when I go to a pub. Last Summer, a publican wanted over £1 or a half pint of lemonade. Hardly surprising most people are drinking at home, when they can get 2 litres of the same thing for 20p at Tescos. When landlords realise that those of us who want something that they can safely drink and then drive and at a reasonable price, the slide might stop.
91

N B,

28/07/2008 12:03:19
#98 Peter

You are bottom-feeding, chatting-up Fag Ash Lil and her mates.
92

N B,

28/07/2008 12:06:11
#101 Clive

Why don't you take your own bottle in with you? Ask for a glass of tap water, usually free, drink that then top up the glass with your Aldi Lemonade. When you have had your fill you could even sell some of it round the back of the pub to the other customers at 10p a glug!
93

antifa,

28/07/2008 12:12:31
Petrolhead - your views can be summarised as follows: I should be allowed to do what I want and I don't care if other people are affected.

As I posted the other day, that is the moral position of the two year-old.

"Regardless of whether "passive smoking" exists (it does not in any case)."

Are you seriously suggesting you are competent to make this kind of claim? What knowledge of the research evidence do you have?

Of course you have none: you just want to smoke (and drive big cars etc) and you immediately dismiss anything that says that doing so may be wrong.
94

Peeablo,

UKSSR 28/07/2008 13:30:29
Well, I just paid £7.50 for 3 glasses of coke with a bar lunch - a disgrace considering it's all pure profit and it wasn't a 'designer' bar either.
95

TheSmith,

28/07/2008 13:30:40
Surely the traditional pubs are suffering as more and more people move to new private housing estates which do not have nearby shops and pubs, and do not have regular public transport.
So instead of going to the local, you either have to travel to the retail park to buy booze from the supermarket and drink it at home, or waste taxi fare on a night out at a soulless chain pub/restaurant.
96

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 13:30:52
#89:

"Im not doing anyone any harm being inside though"

Maybe not, but they way you are moaning and groaning, it would be better all round if you left.


#104:

"Are you seriously suggesting you are competent to make this kind of claim? What knowledge of the research evidence do you have?"

Yes. I am competent to make that judgement call. What evidence do I have? Simple. The fact that there is no-one recorded as having died or become seriously ill by dint of "passive smoking" and this is compounded by the fact that certain "scientists" are putting that very figure in the thousands per year.

If you cannot see that making an outrageous claim like that it obviously a complete and utter lie, and thereby deduce that the whole thing is therefore a complete and utter lie, then I genuinely feel sorry for you.

You cannot have "evidence" to prove that something is false. You need evidence to SUGGEST that it may be true. In the case of "passive smoking", that evidence would be dead bodies accompanied by autopsy reports that state that the person was deceased because of passive smoking and for no other reason. Such evidence does not exist. And that being the bottom line evidence, it follows that passive smoking does not exist either. QED.
97

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 13:35:39
#104:

"you just want to smoke (and drive big cars etc) and you immediately dismiss anything that says that doing so may be wrong."

Naturally. Because neither are wrong!

Why do people need to make things so bl00dy complicated nowadays? It never used to be like this. In the 1970s, your business was none of anyone elses business and as far as I am concerned, that is the way it STILL is.
98

N B,

28/07/2008 13:36:21
#106 Dodgy Dave

I would have thought that around your way home-made ,tax free, hooch would be the tipple of choice.
99

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

In the privee 28/07/2008 13:39:00
All the factors in the article contribute to the demise of the public house, Those and the bland chemical laden
mass produced overpriced beers.
I am not going to get embroiled in the smoking debate again, I have found my solution to continue my habit
as where and when I choose legally. What is needed now
is the Privee as opposed to the pub, which has probably had its day.
I am for example brewing my own beers and wines to set
up a bar in my home. This means I can mix and match ingredients till I find a mix for each type of beer
I enjoy. If groups of friends get together to do this
and share the products, then by invitation to each others houses you can enjoy the pub experience privately in the company of your choosing and probably in more convivially than the "ambience" provided by most pubs these days. You can even sell the beer as long as you don't make a profit from doing so and in such case the average cost is about 50p per pint.
So if all free thinking smokers got together then the
overpriced, inhospitable clone pubs could be left to the control freaks of the anti smoking lobby, and as far as I am concerned they are welcome to them.
I don't think I have been in a pub since the smoking
ban, and it's been no great loss.
100

N B,

28/07/2008 13:41:25
#111 Alter

The day they ban fags and fast petrol cars will be the day when the world has officially gone mad. Think of it this way, to make a book about global warming a tree must die. If they had not bothered spouting their keek, the tree would still be alive to sook up the C02 from a turbo-charged vehicle. Global whineing is thus a self fulfilling prophesy. They will turn the rainforest into pamphlets if left to their own devices.
101

N B,

28/07/2008 13:47:13
#113 Ghost

Does the EEC Wine Lake still exist? If so you could take your holiday on it's shores and fill up a couple of kegs to take back with you. On your way home you can swing by the butter mountain and get some for your wife's home baking.
102

N B,

28/07/2008 13:55:55
#116 Peter

Woman that smoke look auld and haggered before their time. They are also bad tempered and smell a of fags and cheap perfume, best avoided IMO.
103

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

28/07/2008 13:57:45
NB Snob, and possibly celibate?
104

Liz,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 13:58:31
#110
Was it not suggested that when Roy Castle died of lung cancer, the most likely cause of it was all the smoke he inhaled during the years he spent working as a musician in nightclubs.

But as I mentioned before the passive smoking is almost an irrelevancy when it comes to the fact - yes fact - that when people around you smoke you go home stinking of cigarretes which most (who still have a sense of smell due to not smoking) find unpleasant, just because you do not does not make you any more correct on this issue than anyone else - despite what you may think.
105

Liz,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 14:01:08
#117
On the other hand, men who smoke are all resemble the Greek gods and are viewed as extremely desirable with their low sp*rm counts and raking coughs.
106

N B,

28/07/2008 14:01:24
#118 Ghost

I think woman from any socio-economic group could be smokers, ergo you are the snob. As I wrote earlier, anybody going after fag ash Lil and her mates is a bottom feeder in this game of pass the genes that we call life.
107

N B,

28/07/2008 14:04:40
#120

A craggy faced, rough voiced man would moisten most ladies gussets. A craggy faced, rough voiced lady on the other hand...
108

N B,

28/07/2008 14:11:24
#119 Liz

If the Roy Castle case is the best evidence against passive smoking then smoking should be allowed back in public places. All that would be needed is a sign that says if you are in a room full of chain smokers don't suck up all the smoke through a trumpet night after night. Wee Roy was not a passive smoker, but a very active participant sucking it up through his unfiltered trumpet.
109

N B,

28/07/2008 14:17:45
#124 Peter

Each to his own. What do you consider hot? Could a 60 fags a day lady meet your criteria for this accolade?
110

Yeah1,

28/07/2008 14:17:51
#110 Petrolhead:

"there is no-one recorded as having died or become seriously ill by dint of "passive smoking" and this is compounded by the fact that certain "scientists" are putting that very figure in the thousands per year."

No-one is recorded as having died from passive smoking because it is not a cause of death - it is the diseases that come from passive smoking that cause the death - lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease, stroke and respiratory disease.

As for stating that passive smoking does not exist why not try reading numerous reports by medical professionals such as the BMA, Health Scotland and British Medical Journal?

Personally I am far more inclined to believe medical professionals such as those who produce the reports than the rantings of an addict such as yourself desperately trying to deny facts so that you can continue selfishly satisfying your addiction to the detriment of those around you.
111

N B,

28/07/2008 14:21:09
#126 Yeah1

Powerful words tinged with emotion. If smoking was as bad for people as you think then why is it not banned?
112

,

28/07/2008 14:29:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
113

N B,

28/07/2008 14:33:19
#128 How much do you spend a week on drink?
114

Yeah1,

28/07/2008 14:34:10
#127

"If smoking was as bad for people as you think then why is it not banned?"

Bacause by the time it was discovered that smoking was bad for you, the tobacco industry was already a multi-billion pound industry with a lot of leverage politically. Governments also get a lot of income from tobacco tax.

If tobacco had been discovered in the last few years instead of several centuries ago it would certainly be banned now, just as heroin, cocaine and other such addictive drugs are.
115

N B,

28/07/2008 14:37:24
#129 Peter

"but I like bright, tall, slim, beautiful women, but then, who doesnt! "

Most Fag-Ash Lil types have stunted growth due to an early start on the ole cancer sticks. I am not saying that all of them are unsuitable candidates to get your NatKing off; but I am saying, not for me. I will leave them to the bottom feeders.
116

N B,

28/07/2008 14:45:53
#132

It is a bit more complicated than you might think. Obesity is near to overtaking smoking as the No. 1 cause of death in the United States, government researchers said on Tuesday, and other research shows that its adverse health effects could soon wipe out many recent improvements in health.

A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that tobacco use was still the leading cause of death in 2000, killing 435,000 people, or 18.1 percent of everyone who died.

But poor diet and physical inactivity caused 400,000 deaths, or 16.6 percent of the total, the report said.

Smoking statistics - Percentage of population who smoke
In 1948, when surveys of smoking began, smoking was extremely prevalent among men: 82% smoked some form of tobacco and 65% were cigarette smokers. By 1970, the percentage of cigarette smokers had fallen to 55%. From the 1970s onwards, smoking prevalence fell more rapidly but since 1992 the rate has levelled out and in 2005 a quarter of men (aged 16 and over) were reported as smokers
117

Steve_HMFC,

28/07/2008 14:53:45
#110

"Maybe not, but they way you are moaning and groaning, it would be better all round if you left."

A highly insightful response, you are doing your smoker comrades proud!
118

Liz,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 14:59:31
#123
I was mearly pointing out that there is actually at least one example of someone for whom the evidence suggests that passive smoke inhilation was a definate contributary factor in their death, trumpet or not. Mr Petrolhead was suggesting that no one has ever been negativly affected.
119

Liz,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 14:59:33
#123
I was mearly pointing out that there is actually at least one example of someone for whom the evidence suggests that passive smoke inhilation was a definate contributary factor in their death, trumpet or not. Mr Petrolhead was suggesting that no one has ever been negativly affected.
120

mandyv,

banitland UK 28/07/2008 15:15:26
36# PD - All I could smell the last time I went in a pub was over-powering, carcinogenic fragrances, not easy to eat, swallowing that stuff either. Given that, that could not create cancer with the smoking beagles, or lab rats, with smoking, yet they can with perfumes and the like. Which do not have dirty great warnings on them either!

http://www.ourlittleplace.com/chemicals.html
3. BENZYL ACETATE (in: perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants)
Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects." "Do not flush to sewer."
http://www.mamashealth.com/doc/cleanprod.asp
FURNITURE POLISH: contain petroleum distillates, which are highly flammable and can cause skin and lung cancer. They contain nitrobenzene, which is easily absorbed through the skin and extremely toxic.

Would I want them banned? No, because, our life revolves around chemicals.
Just the truth would be nice.
Supermarket drink has always been cheaper, so that is a non-argument.
When the sun is out, so are the people, spending money, which our economy desperatly needs.
The rain and cold make people miserable enough, without forcing them to stand unprotected in it.
The smoking ban is the reason, we have stopped going out. I do not care about real ale either, so that would not make a differance to me.
The only people who will be happy with the headlines are the puritans. Prohibition and oppresion do not make happy people or economies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there
121

N B,

28/07/2008 15:18:00
The human animal does have a predilection for self harm. From consumption of the slow-poison that is alchohol, to "treating" ourselves to fatty sweet foods like cream cakes, to inventing devices that stop us getting what little exercise is available(remote controls, escaltors etc).
122

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

28/07/2008 15:31:42
139 To killing and being killed on the battlefield at the behest of control freaks and the power hungry under whatever guise they choose.
123

Liz,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 15:34:45
#138
"The rain and cold make people miserable enough, without forcing them to stand unprotected in it."

Yes, and the smell of smoke in pubs used to make me fairly miserable. The fact that it reacted badly to my eyes made me even more miserable some nights when the ventilation was particulary bad. Now that I can go out and enjoy a drink with out it (the smoke) my evenings are much improved.
124

N B,

28/07/2008 15:38:37
#141 Peter

I have also know "any holes a goal" types like you through the years. Courting a lady is a dieing art; the evening should start somewhere lively for a pre-show cocktail, next would be on to a show to suit the ladies tastes, then on to a fine dining establishment for a 10pm table, finishing up after 4 haute cuisine courses before midnight, the rest I will leave to your imagination...
125

N B,

28/07/2008 15:47:03
#143... Continuation

Imagine taking Fag-ash Lil on such a night out. It would be cocktails gulped down to allow time for a 10 minute fag break, walking next to it puffing it's way along to the theatre, at the intermisson rather than a stiffner for the 2nd half you would be standing oustide in the alley while it puffs away, between courses at the restaurant you would be sat alone while ole Fag-Ash was puffing away outside, the rest would be sending ole fag-ash home in a taxi on it's own.

126

sonofhamish,

edinburgh 28/07/2008 15:48:09
It has nothing to do with the smoking ban, the big evil here is cheap supermarket alcohol which compounds the troubled relationship we have with booze up here.

Its time to put an end to cheap supermarket booze, in fact I think they should be banned from selling alchol, only off licenses and pubs should be able to.

I think also that pubs need to be a little smarter about how they get custom, I have seen new/refurbished pubs open near where I live that are booking and packed fall.

People no longer want to go into smoky old dive pubs, and thats no bad thing.
127

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 15:56:11
#68 "This act is against the Human rights enshrined in law in Scotland, it prevents that most fundamental freedoms, the freedom of association."

I've never heard anything so pathetic in my life.

"Yeah, I was going to foment a great humanitarian revolution, eradicate poverty and injustice and create an eternal Utopia for all mankind, but I didnae because I couldnae have a fag at the same time."

We put up with your disgusting reek everywhere we went for 50 years, smokers. Have the common decency to stop bellyaching now that it's our turn.
128

Spanners,

28/07/2008 16:05:50
It's not only the death of pubs it's the death of plain English. The article says "the traditional local pub is facing an "unprecedented threat" from soaring costs and stay-at-home drinkers." You mean 'stay at home SMOKERS".

Anyone with half a brain knows pre-ban non-smoking pubs were half emtpy. Witherspoons pubco tried and failed with a non-smoking policy and people (smokers and non-smokers) democratically decided with their feet to walk past their joints. They found exactly what happens when you ban smoking - your trade drops by 25-35%.

So let's call a ban a ban and not beat around the heather like headless chickens. It's been an unmitigated failure with the health extremists trampling over this countries culture with jack boots on, not giving a jot for the majorities opinions and waving banners with junk science about the nations health (there's no health benefits - do the science sometime).

When these looney minorities get through with smoking, alcahol, food and any other mildly interesting activity (pie fights in Brighton were recent cancelled) we'll have a sterlised world devoid of democracy, the right to choose and having a laugh.

Big Bro is here and now. He's already air-brushing reality and historical history out of all media (newspapers and TV) with cigarettes, cigars and pipes being removed from pictures. It's deceipt but hey, let's not let the truth get in the way of our labotomised, sterile brave new lifestyle.

You never knew biggotry by a minority and without your consent was so much fun did you?
129

Spanners,

28/07/2008 16:21:46
Graham, be assured the 'pro-smokers' are twisting nothing. The twisting, spin, propaganda and lying is all very much one-sided.

Scottish Health ministers were caught lying about the heart attack drops in Scotland. The study was garbage. ASH Scotland have been exposed claiming ciggy smoke is "radioactive". More garbage from extremists. Cancer Research UK has claimed "10,000 lives will be saved" (err so non-smokers live forever then!) based on extrapolating NHS claims that their quit service has increased (it's actually declined). And Brown just regurgitated this junk science at PM's Questions last week. Just new lies on top of old lies to sustain a big lie.

And Ireland has seen an identical carnage in their pub industry contrary to Govt assertions pubs would be full of happy non-smokers (they weren't pre-ban so how does that one work?). So for your "beer sales are declining, cheap supermarket booze increasing" unfounded thesis I suggest you try running a non-smoking Pub next to a smoking Pub. Then you'll discover what Witherspoons did. Democracy does not support businesses that ban peoples habits and leaves them out in the wind and rain during the 6-9 months of winter.

Dream on mate. Like Labour.
130

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 16:28:37
#149 "So let's call a ban a ban and not beat around the heather like headless chickens. It's been an unmitigated failure"

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that the purpose of the smoking ban was to increase pub takings. In fact it was a public health issue. So has it failed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7511210.stm
- Rates of drug taking, smoking and drinking are falling among young teenagers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7480856.stm
- 400,000 people in England stop smoking as a result of the ban, perhaps saving 40,000 lives in the next decade.

Oh, and as for the pubs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7508824.stm
- sales down just ONE percent. If a 1% sales drop closes your pub, it wasn't much of a business in the first place and is probably better off shut.
131

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 16:30:52
#151 "Then you'll discover what Witherspoons did."

What, that their sales dropped a whole 1% in the first year of the smoking ban? The year when the effect would be at its most dramatic as people struggled to adapt to the change? Oh no! Disaster!

Pubs are finding ways to draw people in to compensate for losing a few filthy smokers, and becoming far better places as a result. Stop fighting the future.
132

Kitti Kat,

Newtown Square 28/07/2008 16:42:51
I agree with 1 and 2. I don't smoke but see no reason why smokers are being given the shaft. I too said that the ban on smokers would affect pubs her and in the UK. My feeling is that if you don't like smoke, STAY THE HECK HOME or find a smokless pub, restaurant, etc. It's about time that big brother government stayed out of our personal lives. They're even pushing bakeries, restaurants, etc. to use different cooking oils where I live. Forget aboiut the taste. Give a choice but don't puonish those of us who are not worrying about cooking oils, second hand smoke, et. As I say, "if you can't stand the smoke, stay out of the pub"
133

wattie>x 1,

PLYMOUTH 28/07/2008 16:53:18
Last orders?
Death of the PUB?
Who says so? And WHY?
The same sleazy, lying, corrupt shower of people that probably have NEVER done a days worthwhile work in their lives?
There never is one day that goes past in Blair and Brown's RAMSHACLE dis-united UK that we wake up to some prospect off doom and gloom with some aspect of our daily lives.
Anything but what are the real PROBLEMS facing our daily lives as the these overpaid political impostors disappear for almost three months (as they do most time from parliament) to give them the opportunity to prepare more lies to hoodwink and satisfy the "SHEEP".
We have been fed daily since the tragedy of New York with the word terrorism, and the new daily subject is "global warming" and the "running out of oil" nonsense as the rich sit back and wait for the conned mugs to swell their easy finacial gains. t When did the he wealthy EVER frequent pubs?
WILL WE EVER LEARN?
I DOUBT IT IT VERY MUCH AND THE SLIMY POLITICIANS KNOW EXACTLY THAT!
134

Yeah1,

28/07/2008 17:14:49
#154

"My feeling is that if you don't like smoke, STAY THE HECK HOME or find a smokless pub, restaurant, etc"

My feeling is that if you don't like standing outside to smoke instead of inflicting your smoke on others STAY THE HECK HOME.

Why on earth should the majority of people in this country who are non-smokers be forced to endure the smoke, stench and other side effects of smoking because a selfish minority of addicts are too lazy to get up and go outside?
135

radge dug,

Dùn Eideann 28/07/2008 17:15:36
Aidh, like DVD's have been a disaster for the film industry. Deal with it. Change.

slàinte mhath!
136

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 17:26:04
#126:

"No-one is recorded as having died from passive smoking because it is not a cause of death"

Thank you very much!

So seeing as passive smoking is not a cause of death and the reasons behind this mind-numbingly stupid smoking ban were built primarily on the false premises that it was, can we now have a return to normality and the scrapping of all these discriminatory, un-neccesary laws?

This is typical of the stupid politicians we have nowadays. Bring out some rediculous leglislation based upon the rantings of fools coupled with false "justification". When the false justification is proven to be false, continue with the rediculous legislation anyway because now more ranting fools have come out of the woodwork and you don't want to offend their delicate little sensibilities---and S0D EVERYONE ELSE.

Get rid of this stupid lawy now and stop the hate campaign against people who simply wish to make their own choices in life.
137

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 17:29:43
#157:

"Why on earth should the majority of people in this country who are non-smokers be forced to endure the smoke, stench and other side effects of smoking"

Because:-

1. The majority of non-smokers are not selfish bigots and respect the rights of others to do as they wish
2. The majority of non-smokers are not bothered by tobacco smoke
3. There are no "side-effects" of being in a room where people smoke unless that room is exceptionally smoky, in which case you would probably find that the smokers themselves would want to do something about it in any case.

OK?
138

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 17:49:30
#160 "The majority of non-smokers are not bothered by tobacco smoke"

You're really, REALLY going to have to come up with some sources for that one.
139

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 17:51:06
#161:

So that must be the reason that if you go to Spain, Portugal or Poland the decision as to whether smoking is allowed is down to the individual landlord then? That is what it used to be here and is what it should still be.

There is nothing good about this rediculous ban so don't get under the impression that there is.
140

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 17:54:40
Once again Rev, it's down to simple common sense.

If I was surrounded by moaning bigots whenever I light up, then it would follow that the majority of non-smokers don't like tobacco smoke. I am not surrounded by moaning bigots when I light up. The ones who moan are in the minority. Therefore the majority of people don't bother themselves about it.

Try applying simple logic based upon observation for once. There's no need to try to hypothesise everything in an attempt to "prove" it.
141

aj-midlothian,

eskbank 28/07/2008 17:56:07
Is this bad news?! surely the fewer the number of pubs the better. a walk through any urban area in scotland on a weekend night or a visit to any a&e department in the country will show the effect that the saturation of pubs and clubs competing for business in this country has on it's customers. if people want to get drunk/vomit/lie in their own pee/pick a fight in the comfort of their own home i'm all for it.

i know it's a bit of a cliche but scotland is well known as the sick man of europe, viewed from the outside as a nation of alcoholics. if we're all really honest, and look at the issue objectively, i'm sure everyone will agree that the 'death of the pub' will benefit the nation as a whole for years to come.
142

Spanners,

28/07/2008 17:56:36
Peter Baleares, you're a typically un-informed non-smoker. There's nothing "for the good" about the smoking ban. It's all bad news mate.

Firstly it's shut over 2,000 pubs and clubs, made 40,000 staff jobless (the one's it purported to protect!) and socially divided social lives and workplaces. It provides no health benefits whatsoever (check the science - let me know if you want some pointers/help). The reduction in deaths and heart attacks claimed by the Scottish and British health ministers are a fraud.

Next Re. Europe. There's no ban in Spain (I've just come back 2 weeks ago). The ban in Italy is not honoured. The French ban is on an ad hoc basis, not Law, so any PM can withdraw it if they want votes at the next election. The Dutch are fighting the ban. The Germans are fighting the ban as unconstitional (they have a decent consitution, unlike Britains, that protects against looney minorities like the Nazis, who were first to ban smoking on 'health' grounds).

Hungary has no ban. Austria is implementing what most of us want, venues given the choice of smoking anf non-smoking areas. I'm not sure about Russia but given they base their policies on genuine science I think their smoking policy, like their climate change policy, will put this garbage about health down to junk science and file it in the bin (where climate change and smoking bans belongs).
143

Whoppit,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 18:03:17
Irrespective of the relative merits of the smoking ban, it is not going to change anytime soon.

What can change is the way that tax is collected on alcohol. Some more creative thinking needs to be done to address unintended consequences of routine hikes in tax. Take the deep discounting at supermarkets - it seems strange that the cheapest booze is available from the outlets that exercise no contol over the enviornment it which it is drunk. What about an incremental tax on beer based on the alcohol content. It is more cost effective to drink a pint of 5% than a pint of 2.8%. Pubs outside the center of cities could be subject to lower taxation.

If we continue the was that we are going, we will end up as a society where drinking will be to get drunk, either in private or in uncontrolled public spaces.
144

Spanners,

28/07/2008 18:05:42
Rev S Cambell, try the British national survey before the ban that showed 70% of the public apposed an all out ban. Guess what, after the ban the Govt removed the survey question that asked if people wanted choice. If there was a non-bent survey you will find people do not object to smoking in public places (even if their heads are still filled with propoganda about smoke being a danger).

I've just returned from Ibiza where nobody complains about smoking in clubs, bars and restaurants. Nobody did before the ban here either.

You mightlike to consider the 'ad-hoc' street survey. Before the ban, when people had a choice (remember those days Rev?) they piled into smoking venues and never bothered the tills at non-smoking joints. Ask Witherspoons who tried a non-smoking policy and U-turned as trade went through the floor.

If you mwant a real survey, and not another bent Govt consultancy report, just remember what democracy was like 1 year ago before the ban. Non-smoking venues and bans do not work. People vote with their feet. Period.
145

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 18:05:54
#164 "If I was surrounded by moaning bigots whenever I light up, then it would follow that the majority of non-smokers don't like tobacco smoke. I am not surrounded by moaning bigots when I light up. The ones who moan are in the minority."

Your logic is monstrously flawed. I would happily kick smokers in the head until brains leaked out of their ears, but almost never bothered pointing it out to my smoker friends in pubs because it was so utterly pointless. Smokers are by nature pathetic addicts, so the mere fact of people complaining isn't going to make them conquer their addiction and change their behaviour. (On the occasions when I did raise the issue, they'd look momentarily shocked, then shrug their shoulders and light up again.)

It is a terrible error of judgement to underestimate the utter loathing most non-smokers have for smokers who insist on inflicting their repulsive habit on non-participants. It's just that we're far better people than you, and were prepared to compromise for 50 years for the sake of our weak, pitiable friends.
146

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 18:14:33
#170 I like having a w*nk, but I wouldn't come to the pub and do it in your beer.
147

we the people,

28/07/2008 18:23:28
163 i agree.
quite dismayed by the radical pro and anti factions here. why either a total ban or allowing it everywhere? why not let the market decide? undoubtedly there will be bars (big chains like all bar one etc) whose customers will want no smoking. equally there will be those at the other end (the more trad pubs, small commu nity locals) whose clientele don't go to the pub to eat dinner with their family, but rather to have a few scoops and a few smokes with their pals. why can't there be room for both? Clubs, in particular, should definitely be smoking allowed - the smell of other peoples' sweat is v unpleasant. likewise a lot of pubs now seem to smell 'foody' - slight tomato ketchup tang when you walk in. i don't like it. there should be places to cater for everyone, with places of a certain size perhaps forced to have a non smoking area with decent extraction, as in spain. that way, people can go where they like and everyone's happy!
148

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 18:31:25
#173 Doesn't work. The smokers go to the smoking area because they're pathetic addicts who can't last 20 minutes without a drag, their friends go with them because they're tolerant, considerate people who want to socialise with their friends. No-smoking pubs close down, "split" pubs lose out because half the floorspace is empty and they've wasted thousands on fancy extraction equipment, and nobody's health gets any better.

Smoking is disgusting and indefensible anywhere there are non-smokers. The ban is part of a wider public-health strategy aimed at "de-normalising" this revolting habit, which is proving highly successful. Smokers had half a century to act decently and keep their foul poison away from everyone else. It didn't work. Now they're paying the price. Suck it up.
149

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 18:37:28
#172 No, because unlike most smokers I'm a decent and considerate human being. I don't need a law to tell me not to inflict my pleasures on other people who don't want to be part of them. Unfortunately, smokers do, so now we've got one.
150

we the people,

28/07/2008 18:42:45
i'm concerned by your attitude reverend (smokers can't be decent humans etc). there seems to be, behind a good deal of anti smoking positions, the incipient idea that one has an absolute right never to be bothered in any way by anyone else when one is not at home. this supreme valorising of the individual is leading to the sanitisation of public space. anyone who loves sponteneity, chaos, collective experience should be worried.
151

Lee Hutchison,

Fife 28/07/2008 18:46:18
thankfully there are absolutely no plans from any of our political parties to renounce the smoking ban so all these addicts on here greetin' about it will just have to lump it....aww shame.

you smoke = you stink

it's really that simple.

Any business anywhere is in danger of closing if it isn't run well enough, and has as already been pointed out many times in this thread, the good pubs seem to be thriving
152

Lee Hutchison,

fife 28/07/2008 18:48:40
180 - i think you;ll find he was saying that most of them aren't considerate of anyone who doesn't want to breathe in their foul reek
153

Lee Hutchison,

fife 28/07/2008 18:52:14
omg now we should all smoke because it's the decent thing to do......

what cost to the families who lose loved ones to lung cancer ?
154

Lee Hutchison,

fife 28/07/2008 18:54:32
you know we raise far more money from the sale of weapons than it costs us to treat gunshot wounds too........

yeehaa think i'll buy myself an m16, it's the patriotic thing to do after all
155

Mcsnagpile,

28/07/2008 18:57:38
Afore ye go jist remember tae din an doris
156

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 19:06:23
#180 I get around a lot.

#185 We tried relying on smokers' voluntary sense of consideration and decency. We gave it five decades, but it didn't work. You had your chance.
157

Lee Hutchison,

fife 28/07/2008 19:08:05
187 - what exactly were you inferring then ?
that the noble smoker is the beating heart of our health service ?
or should non-smokers have to pay a health service tax because we refuse to choose to die of lung cancer ?
158

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 28/07/2008 19:31:27
#190 Good for you. Unfortunately you're the exception that proves the rule.
159

Scottish then British,

Corstorphine 28/07/2008 19:38:58
The pub owners would blame the no smoking rule, it wouldn`t be the COST OF A PINT would it, oh no, must keep the shareholders happy.
160

Navvy,

28/07/2008 19:42:52
apart from the fact that I have never smoked I rekon that I fit the demographics of a pub goer. I have never chosen lager over ale indeed when I started drinking lager was only for what were called ***fters and girls. Why would I go to a pub? For the ale, some conversation and mebbe for a decent bite to eat - the latter is a change over the last 40 odd years. I would say that pubs have killed themselves with their flashing light juke boxes and fruit machines and ripping out the old fittings and their silly happy hour type offers. A real pub goer is not bothered by offers.

Sadly the pubs which come nearest the traditional are the non-chain Irish pubs but I ish one could get away from the TV screen
161

Bill Crombie,

Bath 28/07/2008 20:05:53
Rev.S Campbell seems to imply that all non-smokers are nice, considerate people and not so smokers. Complete and utter tosh and you know it.

Bring back choice, bin the smoking ban and bring back some sanity.
162

Bill Crombie,

28/07/2008 20:54:15
#197 - Strange how 10 out of the 12 organisations that think passive smoking is a killer are American - hardly a representative example.

If there is a danger to the health of non-smokers from ETS, SHS or passive smoking, then it is a very small risk and well within the risk limits that adults can make their own minds up. Passive smoking was just a clever "marketing tool", so that the anti-tobacco jihad could invoke smoking bans. There is not a shred of evidence to prove conclusively that passive smoking is harmful.

Choice is what is required. Ventilation is what is required. Some truth about passive smoking would help. Freedom to lead ones own life without the overbearing New Labour mentality would be a greater help. Roll on the next General Election.
163

magazine,

Twickenham 28/07/2008 20:58:53
It's not just pubs. Bingo halls are dying. Players liked a fag with their drinks and numbers
164

DeborahJD,

Chicago 28/07/2008 21:12:13
You have to wonder what will be the next ban. Getting rid of smokers is easy and they had two camps.. either you smoke or you don't. It what comes next that concerns me. And there will be a next... of that I am sure.
What can you give up without a choice.
A book.. a beach .. the right to drive ?
165

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 28/07/2008 21:12:58
I loathe smoking. Smoke clings to everything, and then transfers itself to things like your car seats after you've been in a smoky pub. So I HATE pubs in which people smoke and I exit straight away without ordering a drink, as soon as I see a smoker light up. And yes, it IS better for both of us that way.

When having a weekend pub lunch, all my friends who have children avoid pubs which tolerate smokers.
166

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 28/07/2008 21:14:23
Ive built a pub in my garden as the government interfere too much in my weekend boozing. Only friends are welcome and its byob so less tax and smoking is allowed...
167

Rollo Tommasi,

28/07/2008 21:17:40
No.199 - You have no answer to Mario's perceptive comments.

His list is a very representative sample, when 151 countries have signed up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The risks of passive smoking are well established and substantiated by the great majority of available scientific evidence. For every road traffic fatality in Scotland, there are 2 to 3 deaths from passive-smoke induced heart disease and lung cancer. Hardly the "very small risk" that you claim! And, while people are entitled to make their minds up about the risks of smoking to their own health, it's a different matter when their choices affect the health of people around them.

And ventilation is not required. Ventilation does not work. Decades of experience proves it. You may cling to a belief that modern ventilation systems are more effective than ever, but a system that is not maintained is as useful as a chocolate fireguard. And few pubs have maintained even their existing ventilation systems properly.
168

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 28/07/2008 21:23:20
The fact that so many pubs are closing means that some people are now going to drink and drive, instead of just walking.

Universally available cheap alcohol in shops is also allowing children to get their hands on it. At least in a pub there is a reasonable chance of controlling underage drinking.

The government must increase the price of alcohol in shops and decrease the alcohol tax in pubs, so that they meet in such a manner that the total revenue remains the same.

It should be a criminal offence for anyone to give a drink in a public place to someone who is obviously drunk, whether the drunk is a friend or a customer.
169

Citylocal Fife,

Fife News 28/07/2008 21:43:58
Smoking kills - passive smoking kills. Having watched my father die from (smoking induced) emphysema, I would not like this inflicted on anyone. People have made an informed choice, a pub is like any business - adapt or die. Quite simple really.
170

Nellie,

Liverpool 28/07/2008 22:04:13
#88 No one has died from passive smoking? Where'd you get that idea? I'll tell you one famous name that died of it: Roy Castle. Lung cancer of the kind that is caused by the inhalation of cigarette smoke, yet he never smoked one ciggie in his Life! But he played in hundreds of clubs and bars where the atmosphere was thick with the smoke of the fags.
171

MoragtheToerag,

Argyll 28/07/2008 22:12:57
Guilty as charged. I like a smoke when I go out on the lash, so since the ban we've become at home drinkers.

And now the government wants to penalise us for that by raising the price of booze in shops.

Pretty soon they'll be punishing us for breathing.
172

Calum Crubag,

28/07/2008 23:02:50
#209 - Poor you. You sound oppressed. Im sure there's plenty of poor folk in the world who would hate to have your problems.

Meanwhile, after i've drunk, i'll pishhh the residue on you. It's harmless and folk should be allowed to pissh anywhere they like. Next they'll punish us for writing.
173

Nellie,

Liverpool 28/07/2008 23:26:46
Note posted at a pub, The Freshfield Hotel in Formby, underneath an outdoor gazebo erected for the smokers. I'll try to remember it correctly:

"Customers with food are asked to refrain from eating in this area, in consideration of the smokers."
174

archie23,

london 28/07/2008 23:39:12
I would rather have fewer non smoking pubs than loads of pubs fouled by smokers. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
175

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 23:43:07
Ok Nellie @ #208,

Now give me 6 more.

What's that? You can't? Oh what a surprise.

And Roy Castle died from lung cancer, which you can get from many sources other than tobacco smoke. So what point are you trying to make?
176

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 23:46:20
Mario,

You are very, very strange indeed. No-one in their right mind would quote sources of propaganda that aim to prevent them doing what they enjoy.

I take it that you do enjoy smoking... otherwise, why are you doing it?

Come on mate! Get on-side! You know it makes sense!
177

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 23:50:47
Rev @ 169:

I somehow think you would have significant problems kicking the heads of some of the smokers I know, until their brains come out of their ears.

I have a funny feeling that they would fight back and leave you looking somewhat less attractive than you may do now.

This isn't about fighting mate. It'sabout common sense and TOLLERANCE, which is something that gets lost in the nazi state we now live in.
178

Nellie,

Liverpool 29/07/2008 01:13:37
#213 You said "According to official records NO-ONE has died from "passive smoking". NO-ONE has suffered a life-threatening disease from "passive smoking" and NO-ONE has even been proven to have suffered a nuisance but not life threatening condition through "passive smoking". " Okay, let me give you some, then:

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html The Wrld Health Organisaton says, "The World Health Organization (WHO) has been publicly accused of suppressing information. Its opponents say that WHO has withheld from publication its own report that was aimed at but supposedly failed to scientifically prove that there is an association between passive smoking, or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and a number of diseases, lung cancer in particular. Both statements are untrue....The results of this study... are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%."
That's one study, referring to others as well.
You want more? How about BUPA? http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html "Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the BMA, said, "It would be wrong to be swayed by one flawed study funded by the tobacco industry - set against the studies and numerous expert reviews that demonstrate that passive smoking kills." "
More? How about the US Enviromental Protection Agency? http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a major assessment of the respiratory health risks of passive smoking ( Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders EPA/600/6-90/006F). The report concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as sec
179

Nellie,

Liverpool 29/07/2008 01:23:08
/continued: (The report concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as) secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children."
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/116330144/abstract?SRETRY=0 "These findings confirm that passive smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer, especially for adenocarcinoma among Japanese women. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc."

If you'd like more evidence of studies that prove passive smoking causes lung cancer, to let me know. There are plenty more where that came from.
180

Nellie,

Liverpool 29/07/2008 01:47:36
#199 Ventilation doesn't work: See http://www.gasp.org/etsstudy.html "Dr Peter Terry, Chairman of BMA Scotland said: "Passive smoke kills. Businesses installing expensive ventilation systems will do so in the belief that they are protecting staff and the public from the ill-effects of second hand smoke. The sad truth is that they are mistaken.
"Although good ventilation can help reduce the irritability of smoke, it does not eliminate its poisonous components. Tobacco smoke contains 4,000 toxins and more than 50 cancer-causing substances. Many of these are odourless, invisible gasses, which are not removed by ventilation systems.""
181

Nellie,

Liverpool 29/07/2008 02:05:08
"Name me 5 people who died from passive smoking!" Okay, I can't. I personally know only of one family member who died from lung cancer, and she smoked. But your argument is fallacious (not to mention unoriginal.) I'll prove it:

You name me 6 people who died from Hodgkins Disease? Name me 6 people who died from Sleeping Sickness. Name me 6 people who died from Hypertension. What about 6 people who died from Cardio Vascular Disease? Name me 6 people who died from Thrombosis. Name me 6 people who accidentally shot themselves to death. Name me 6 people who died due to stomach cancer. What about 6 people who died from a cut artery? And what about Diabetes? Name me 6 people who have died from grenade shrapnel, or a mortar bomb? Let's narrow this down to just one nation ... name me 6 Japanese soldiers who were killed by Gurkha's slitting their throats. Bet you can't. But just because you can't name them doesn't mean it didn't happen, does it? Or would you suggest that people don't die of Hodgkins Disease, Sleeping Sickness, Hypertension, Cardio Vascular Disease, severed arteries, accidental gunshot wounds, stomach cancer, grenades and mortar bombs, or by Gurkhas slitting an enemies throat?
182

Spanners,

29/07/2008 02:12:58
The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

Impressive list of the corrupt and unanswerable cronies of world politics you've got there. Most countries have also signed up to Kyoto on climate change and what a pile of garbage junk-science that is too!

Then we could add the international signing of the ban on DDT which again was pushed by eco-extremists peddling junk science based on the deeply dishonest Rachel Carson and her book 'Silent Spring' the birth of modern enviromentalism.

Based on unfounded and unproven allegations about cancer dangers to mothers and garbage about DDT going through the food chain America banned DDT followed by the corrupt WHO (World Health Org 'cough corrupt cough cronies cough').

Here's the history of DDT. It was cheap pesticide that killed mosquitos that carried malaria, the biggest killer of children and their mothers in the 3rd World. DDT was eradicating malaria, saving approx. 1 million lives a year until the US and then WHO banned it in an international treaty.

Just one example: Sri Lanka had 2.8m cases of Malaria in 1946 but had all but eradicated it to 17 cases in 1964 through DDT spraying. After the WHO 1964 ban the rate soared to 500,000 cases.

This murderous United Nations decision is estimated to have killed between 50 and 100 million people worldwide, 80% of whom are poor in 3rd world countries, 60% of whom are women and children.

In Sept 2006, after 42yrs of campaigning against the junk science of the eco-movement and the WHO they finally U-turned and promoted DDT spraying once again. This is the single biggest scandal of the UN. The smoking and climate issues when they're exposed for the junk science too will bring this corrupt unaccountable organisation deservedly to its knees.

The DDT ban gave birth to one organisation you mention, The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA were found to effectively be fraudulent in their case against smoking as a danger to public health and a 'pollutant'
183

Spanners,

29/07/2008 02:26:27
Nellie,

It is your arguments that are fallacious. The risks of lung cancer are;

10 in 100,000 non-smoker
12.5 in 100,000 passive smoker (spouse of a smoker)
40 in 100,000 smokers lifetime risk

Please note all risks are considerably below a 1% lifetime risk wether you're a 30 a day smoker or church going non-smoker. The risks are what's called scientifically 'statistically irrelevant' as a risk and too small to omit random variability or what I'd call your chances of picking the right horse in a 10,000 horse race.

Namely if cancer has your name on it, smoker or no smoker, then you're going to get it. Just a smoker has a microscopically smaller chance than a non-smoker of shaking the cancer off.

Your references to cardiovascular diseases et al are all the same risks and I could add stomacj cancer research I've seen too which is 4 cases in 360,000 for smokers and 1 in 360,000 for non-smokers.

You're using a fog horn to blow up an ant out of all proportion for smoking. Passive smoking is just garbage junk science and ranting on about the risks is just an absolute joke. There's no other way of saying it.


184

Nellie,

Liverpool 29/07/2008 02:45:54
#221 Argue that against the many scientific studies that show there is more than just a correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer (and other illnesses associated with it - e.g infant development of smoking mothers versus development of those with mothers who don't smoke, etc.) See my web references above and look over them for yourself.
185

Spanners,

29/07/2008 03:10:27
Nellie, regards your news about Dr Peter Terry, Chairman of BMA Scotland saying: "Passive smoke kills... tobacco smoke contains 4,000 toxins and more than 50 cancer-causing substances" can I suggest he goes straight for a mental health check up because this guy is a serious sicko. No wonder Scotlands gone to the dogs!

Check the John Hopkins University study (USA) showing passive smoke exceeds workplace clean air regulations by 2.6 to 25,000 times. In addition 6 out of 7 medical health studies all show no health dangers, short or long term, to passive smoke. It is impossible to create a dangerous level of passive smoke outside the extreme of a laboratory.

Dr Terry is putting his political cronisim and/or corruption above science and has not a shred of medical evidence nor can he point to a single person (non-smoker or smoker in fact) that has died from smoking. Even in smokers lung cancer, heart attacks etc vary according to where you live in this country, pollution (industrial and household), diet, weight, etc etc.

The biggest factor in all disease appears to be your genetics and family tree. And you can't change that. Your chance of disease or illness is a roll of the dice from your family tree and smoking is one of many factors that have a minute influence on wether it takes hold.

Dr Terrys claim is similar to ASH Scotlans "smoke is radioactive". Here's the link which contains an answer in the Blog comments to his laughable claims about 4,000 chemicals and demonstrates the Dr is a quack!

ASH Scotland claims "Tobacco smoke is radioactive"
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Tobacco-smoke-is-radioactive.4302743.jp

Here's a link to more junk science claims by Scottish health ministers.
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=30
186

Spanners,

29/07/2008 03:17:16
Nellie,

Be assured i'll look over your links and come back tomorrow. But there's not a lot in medical science that I haven't seen regards risks (we've anti-smoking scientists who've turned against your cause because the science is rubbish and lacks all sense of scientific principles for integrity, validity and fairness).

I trust you will check my studies and links and reply. Also see Joe Jacksons (.com) website the ex-singer songwriter who's spent 3 years research to the facts and figures (science) behind smoking. He also sees it as a phantom science.

I think we need another showdown in Court. The anti-smoking movement has been slaughtered each and every time bacause it doesn't have any science behind it (look up the McTear v Imperial Tobacco court case, Scotland 2005). Ciao for now.
187

Nellie,

Liverpool 29/07/2008 04:03:16
#221 I should also add that you have not addressed my defence against the "name me 6 people who have died of passive smoking" FALLACIOUS argument.

As I said, just because I can't name 5 people who have died from passive smoking doesn't mean people don't die of it. If it did, then we should apply the same (il)logic to any other alleged cause of death where we cannot name 6 people who died of it. But as you say, the numbers are statistically small; therefore, unless you work in a cancer specialist unit, it's unlikely you or I would know anyone who died from passive smoking or cardio vascular disease. I do know of at least two in the latter case, my Dad being one of them. Actually, the risk of cardiovascular disease is probably higher since it is often misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's Disease. But I digress. Or do I? Point is, not everyone gets a postmortem. Similarly, not everyone who dies of lung cancer is recorded as having got it from smoking, passive smoking or Radon gas. In short, the figures you quote are a "best guess", and on the conservative side, too.

I forgot to mention, putting aside the reservations we should have about the stats you quote, they still show there is a greater risk of getting lung cancer from passive smoking than not. And then, your stats ONLY apply to passive smokers where there is a smoking spouse. According to your stats, 2.5 in 100,000. (That would equate to around 1500 people, given a UK pop' of 60.6m, I think.) But there are many other environments where people are (or were) working in an atmosphere heavy with tobacco smoke. Your figures don't take these into account and yet there are probably at least as many, if not more of them, than there are non-smokers living with smokers. It seems these variable are not taken into consideration by the (unnamed) study from which you have taken those stats. I.e the risk is much higher than you claim.
188

Nellie,

Liverpool 29/07/2008 04:06:35
G'night Spanners - nice debating with you.
189

Lovetruncheon404,

29/07/2008 06:06:47
Who knows?
Maybe the non smoking pubs were empty cause of the hopelessly addicted passive smokers following their fix around.
And now the pathetic whining funts are taking it out on us poor smokers cause they're no getting their fix anymore.

the fuds.
190

Scars,

Hamilton .. 29/07/2008 09:20:34
Everything reaches a tipping point; its a supply and demand scenario and demand is waning, as such, pubs will close. No big deal.

The sensationalism of this story begs belief. Some of the rantings too!

Stop looking down at your feet and look up and see the real "raison detre" of one,s establishment and government. It, for sure, is not the publics best interest. Its all gonna get a hell of a lot worse, this country has sown the wind, with caution thrown in too and the whirlwind is heading our way.

The sooner people are educated in seeing what is clearly in front of their eyes, the sooner the human element of society will prevail and the lunatic fringe that maintain their status quo through subliminal fascism and dogmatic doctrine, will crumble.

The world is changing at an unprecedented rate and what we have now, shall not, ---- cannot, prevail. That ship is sinking fast and its high time we got our assess on a new canoe !

Pubs closing is a symptom of the problem, the problem is far bigger. Super markets were the demise of the corner store me thinks too ! The farmer pushed out from cheap imports. The list is endless and if you keep reviewing symptoms, you'll never achieve anything.

Anyone got a paddle ?

Is it too early for a pint ? I'll need to go to Asda !

Scars
191

radge dug,

Alba gu brath! 29/07/2008 09:30:36
Fact is, if we allow smoking while we're drinking, then why not have all sorts of drugs being consumed around us? Let's also do away with toilets, what's wrong with people doing the toilet next to us/ or on us (as smoke goes on us)? Urine is harmless and cac probably is equal in harm to tobacco smoke.

In fact, why not do away with all laws we don't like. Yeah! Down with Nazi laws! Neds and kiddiefiddlers have a field day!

192

radge dug,

29/07/2008 09:34:08
This whole argument goes to prove that we're so well off that we don't have anything more to fight for than a few pubs going down the drain.

20 years ago, we fought to save mining communities.

Many people in the world are still fighting just to get food and shelter.

And some folk here whinge about a 'Nazi state' cos they can get access to their drugs where and whenever THEY want, irrespective of others' views. Maybe we need a huge disaster to hit us to put all this into perspective and to restore a sense of community.
193

wayne bijlyeerheid,

middle of ffing nowhere 29/07/2008 09:47:38
Up to about 25 years ago it was common to go for a couple (at least) pints or haufs during your meal break. Speaking as an ex-railway worker, that meant getting at least 4 down during your 45 minute PNB. It was a pleasant break from routine, a chance to talk and reasonably cheap.
Likewise having a couple of drinks (again, at least), on the way home.
Now, the breaks tend to be shorter, lunch time trade has died, the prices are ridiculous, grown ups have to listen to piped music chosen by teenage pub management consultants, and perhaps more important, everyone drives and very few people (sensibly) would risk a breath test and a ban.
Nothing to do with Kyoto.
Better to have relaxing drink when you arrive home.
Or now, if you're near a supermarket.
194

Nellie,

Liverpool 29/07/2008 12:33:58
Spanners
I'll be looking up the lines of enquiry you recommend but I'll have to catch you another time as I must go out of town for a few days. I'll look out for you.
Regards, Nellie
195

Russell M,

Stirling 29/07/2008 14:53:45
Someone remind us what the purpose of government is, because the licensing laws and the draconian enforcement of drink driving laws, two key elements in the demise of the pub come from the government.

A government big enough to give you all the health and safety you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.
196

Yeah1,

29/07/2008 15:17:42
#233

"Someone remind us what the purpose of government is, because the licensing laws and the draconian enforcement of drink driving laws, two key elements in the demise of the pub come from the government."

Draconian enforcement of drink driving laws????

The drink driving laws are not draconian in the slighest, if anything they should be tougher.

Anyone driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is a danger to themselves and others and should feel the full force of the law if they are caught.

Are you suggesting people should be allowed to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol?

I'm sure you would feel differently if a relative or friend of yours had been killed by a drink driver.
197

thebroons,

dunblane 29/07/2008 17:51:22
Surely the reason for pub closures can be linked to Global Warming
or are we not thinking 'outside the box'.
198

Spanners,

30/07/2008 10:33:39
Yeah 1,

Quite right. I don't have the stats' on drink driving but even including the alcahol road deaths are 3 in every Billion kilometers. How many are drunk driving I'm not sure, take your pick. You will of course wish "the full force of Law" and real risks to be applied equally.

1 in 300 is your chance of contracting a NEW disease or illness from an NHS hospital (in 2 weeks in NHS hospitals).

40 in 10,000 is the rough estimate of your chances of a disease or illness from smoking 30 a day for decades (in a lifetime).

You will join me in wanting public health warnings slapped across the faces of NHS hospitals, sacking negligent NHS managers and Health Trusts cronies and a concerted public health TV campaign.

We all here like to deal with health risks on a SCIENTIFIC BASIS of real risks to health and not a politicised perversion of fictional risks based on chips on the shoulder.
199

2Right,

On Location 06/10/2008 02:43:00
Bring back Smoking Pubs

At the very least allow the pubs and public to say if they want to go to a smoking or non smoking pub.

We should never be dictated to
200

DragonsListVideo,

Mc 07/07/2009 14:24:30
As with fatal diseases you usually think it'll happen to someone else and so it was with the Death of Pubs! But we know reality is not like this and now our pub is dead, closed.

The reasons are well discussed above from supermarkets, smoking ban, high cost of sky, pubco's etc etc

In the not too distant future we may as a country look back and ask how we let this happen. Pubs can provide a huge range of social & economic benefits that super markets can never provide, they can't take any responsibility or be held accountable post sale when the alcohol is actually consumed.

We managed to find one positive though and raised some money for a childrens cancer unit via a fun tribute DVD. Time didn't allow to make it comprehensive but good fun was had singing it even though it probably sounded terrible after a good few drinks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yb02E7OzCs


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.