Companies preparing for the smoking ban

[Friedland R]

July this year marks the start of the smoking ban in pubs across the country, and businesses are gearing up for the controversial change. City centre locations are expected to enforce the ban fairly easily, as a number of companies were campaigning for some sort of legislation even before the government reacted. However, in Liverpool for example, pubs in areas of the city where a third of the population smoke are fearing a backlash. Is a ban across all businesses the answer to the issue of smoking? Should businesses and pubs provide their employees and members of the public with facilities of some sort to allow them to smoke?

[johnlambert]

pubs are both businesses and workplaces therfor they come under the same legislation as anywhere else

[kempie]

I presume that when you write "across the country" you actually mean "in England", since the date 1st July 2007 will mark the final phase of implementation of smoking legislation within the UK.

Scotland became 'smokefree' 26th March 2006.
Wales follows suit on 2nd April 2007.
Northern Ireland likewise on 30th April 2007.

[Loosehead]

yes and no, are the short answers. It's been tried up to now and been demonstrated time and again that smokers will not clean up their act voluntarily. They persue their disgusting addiction to the detriment of everyone else.The ban is the only way, and the nations of the world are one by one realising it. I have been to Ireland several times sinnce their ban and it's a joy to be able to go into Pubs etc and have clean air.

[Goodsoulette]

I dont understand why they have banned it everywhere, food establishments I understand. Places that dont serve food, they should have given a choice, then nonsmokers and smokers could have chosen where to go. How healthy do the government really want us to be? Apparently it costs the nhs between 1.5 and 2 billion quid for smoking related illnesses each year, sounds alot but they rake in around 10 billion in tax off fags alone. Where would that extra 8 billion come from if everyone gave up that disgusting addiction tomorrow.

[Gromit]

There is the possiblity that some people will return to visiting pubs if they know it will not be an unpleasant experience, and visitors may actually improve.

It is not unusual for new laws to affect existing businesses. The better run businesses will adapt and survive. One or two poorly run establishments may go well out of business.

And if it does encourage people to give up, they will have more money in their pocket for buying drinks, live longer, and healthier lives.

[IggyB]

hey less about the people using the pubs and restaurants etc and more about the people that work there - the staff shouldn't be subjected to hazardous fumes when they are working... i know people will say they should get a different job but that just isn't always an option and as John says above as they are places of work they fall under the same rules and regulations as everywhere else e.g. no smoking

i'm quite looking forward to it hehehe not smoked for a week and a bit now - and i'm feeling ok and a little bit pleased with myself... so goodsoulette my myspazz profile is no longer a big lie!

[Loosehead]

The problem goodsoulette is that anything short of a total ban is wide open for abuse. roughly 25% are smokers but among pub/bar clientelle that is more like 50% there are very few non smoking pubs because the landlords simply conclude that they don't want to barr 50% of their potential customers. So if for example the law said non smoking when food is served then you'd have all sorts of devices being used so that food isn't served and then you'd have all sorts of arguments about what constitutes "food". Then there's the "private club" argument essentially the landlords would just turn the pub into a private club and with membership of 1p or some such avoidance trick. Other countries have shown that the total ban is the only way. In tems of the loast revenue if everyone gave up then yes there would be a shorfall initially but the true cost of smoking is a lot more than the direct cost to the health service so it wouldn't be a major problem in the long run.

[IggyB]

re backlash - i would be suprised if anything very major happened as it could mean the pub losing its license - the same way as if drugs are routinely sold or used in a drinking establishment... so i would imagine the landlord whilst they might not be happy about it will enforce the ban
plus i understand fines will be applicable - and you can bet that there will be enough non smokers ready and willing to shop those that breach the rule

[Goodsoulette]

Good for you bliss!! A prize awaits if you can make it another week.

[mushroom25]

virgin trains have had a smoke-free policy for a year or two, however smoking in train toilets appears to be widely tolerated; I gather this is because the risk assessment for a conductor challenging a smoker says he/she is at risk of assault, so is advised not to intervene.

on implementation of the ban in July, a smoker on a train could get fined, but the bigger fine will go to virgin trains for not enforcing the ban. I wonder where that will leave virgin's risk assessment?

[Englishbird]

In answer to your question, yes, they should make some provision for areas where adults can make their own choice and smoke. I don't disagree with the ban, it is right that it shouldn't be forced apon people who don't smoke, but I still think there should be provision made for the people that do.

I completely disagree with the arguement that more people will visit pubs, they may go once and sit there with a half a bitter and a cup of tea, but they will not suddenly become 'pub people' just because there's no smoking. Businesses will suffer.

As for people who work there - another rubbish arguement. behind the bar I sometimes deal with abusive, threatening drunk people, I've been swung at, work long hours for little money. There are many aspects to the job that are hazardous, if you don't like it, don't do the job.... it's the reason i'm not a dustman.

[IggyB]

englishbird - it just gets complicated if the government decides to protect some works and not others, what if we said ok health and safety for office workers but if you work in a factory you take your own chances etc its just not very workable or fair... equal protection for all i say - whether they like it or not lol.
(on an aside try not to call other peoples opinions rubbish - its not in the spirit of the site or very constructive when trying to have a debate ... though i'd quite like to see one MP shouting "thats a rubbish answer" at prime ministers question time)

[Goofy]

Interestingly, in Scotland more cigarettes are being sold since the ban. I believe this is also true for ireland. Just means that people are smoking mroe at home - in front of the family, thus exposing children to more smoke, and probably encouraging them to start.

Trouble is the MPs and MSPs have nothing to do as 80% of our legislation comes from the EU and all they do is rubber stamp it - and and add bells.

[Goodsoulette]

ah, Goofy responsible parents wont be smoking in front of their children. I wouldnt dream of even letting my kids see me smoke. Just because I wont be able to have a cigarette in a club doesnt mean I will start enjoying a fag inside me house. I am starting to wonder whether I will continue to smoke at all though, it might even curb my drinking, I cant imagine having a pint without a fag.

[Englishbird]

Iggy B, sorry, I wasn't trying to say anyones answers were rubbish, I just don't think it works as an arguement.

The hunters used to say that fox population would increase dramatically if hunting was banned, that didn't work so they argued that they don't kill many anyway, and I saw on tv the other day, one of them trying to argue that since the ban, the fox population is dying out because we've banned hunting and they're all getting shot.

The truth is, hunters just didn't want to stop hunting, and smokers don't want to stop smoking. Or they don't want to be forced to stop smoking.

It's happening to us anyway, so forgive us a little futile resistance.

I still think a couple of the arguments to ban smoking are 'ineffectual' if not rubbish ;o)

[IggyB]

hehe ineffectual i like...
ignore me i'm all emotional from not smoking for a week (the hangover isn't really helping either - i seem to drink fast without a fag for some reason now)

[dot.hawkes]

i wonder how they will police the non-smoking rule in company vehicles, the whiote van man will be supporting our NHS with his fines lol

[mushroom25]

Delivery vans and other works vehicles which are owned and driven by one driver are likely to be exempt from the regulations.

[TEAK36]

There are ways around the ban.

I was in Dublin last month, and in the garden of the pub the landlord had attatched 2 long wooden walls to the wall of the pub, and also a sort of tent like roof.also scattered around the 'room' were several heaters to keep people warm. To be honest, the bar area was almost empty as everyone was in this 'smoking room' having a fag.

I asked one the guy behind the bar if this was legal, and he said that a room with only 3 wall is not legally a room, and therefore people considered to be smoking outside.I dont know how true this is, but the guy told me that most pubs were now doing this sort of thing.

As an occasional smoker myself, I think this would be a fair option as people who do not smoke dont have to go outside, and the main area of the pub will be kept smoke free.

[brachiopod]

i will not contribute to this corporate question.