Four years on, the smoking ban is popular and defintive claims that it has led to more pubs shutting are unsubstantiated.
By Amanda Sandford, Research Manager of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
England’s pubs and restaurants went smokefree four years ago today. To mark the event ASH has released new data which shows that public support for the measure remains high: 78% of the population are in favour of the law, including almost half of all smokers (47%). Now more smokers support than oppose the law. Meanwhile, an independent review of the impact of the smokefree law found no significant decrease in the number of people visiting pubs or restaurants before or after the legislation.
How very different to the claims made by the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign that the smokefree law is causing pubs to close and that the way to solve the problem is to bring the smoke back into pubs.
So who exactly would support such a move? And who is behind the thinly disguised campaign to amend one of the most popular pieces of health legislation every introduced?
A handful of MPs have put their names to the ‘Save Our Pubs’ campaign but the main protagonist is the tobacco-industry funded pressure group, FOREST and Japan Tobacco International. The claim that many pubs blame the smoking ban for the loss of business is hardly proof of cause and effect.
Other shaky data were revealed in a briefing on the pub trade pre- and post the public places smokefree law which claims that there has been a “marked decline” in the number of pubs in the UK since the implementation of the smoking bans.
This appears to be an update of earlier research by the same organisation – Corporate Responsibility Consulting – which established a “very close relationship” between the rate of decline of pubs and the implementation of smoking bans.
The authors don’t appear to disclose their funders but they have form. Their client list includes the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. The calls might be new but the claims are as stale as the air in a smoky pub.
These reports use what they call a “subjective” definition of pubs. Such surveys have been known to reclassify pubs as restaurants and so claim they have “closed” as pubs when they are simply selling more food. In fact the business stays open, the staff keep their jobs, the name of the bar doesn’t change.
But why not use an objective measure? After all, we know precisely how many licences were issued and the number of premises licensed for on sale and off sale increased by 5% the year England and Wales went smokefree and has risen every year since.
Of course pubs, like all small businesses have been hard hit by the recession. But the tobacco lobby group assertion that thousands of pubs in England and Wales are under threat of closure due to the smoking ban does not stand up to scrutiny. The British public are enjoying the benefits of smokefree drinking and dining and there is little appetite for a return to the bad old days of smoke-filled pubs.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
57 Responses to “Happy smoking ban day everybody! – don’t believe big tobacco’s corporate spin”
Daniel Elton
RT @leftfootfwd: Happy smoking ban day everybody! – don't believe big tobacco's corporate spin http://t.co/3mKCGSN
Grouchy Marx
Wow Amanda, that’s brave of you. Prepare to have your very sensible little article drowned in foam-flecked abuse from the gang of angry right-wing trolls looking for websites on which they can expatiate about: the lack of connection between smoking and health the beneficial effects of breathing in other people’s smoke; the nazi-inspired campaign to extinguish our ancient freedom to blow smoke in other people’s faces; the catastrophe inflicted on the global economy by smoking bans; etc etc. Anyone would think you expect to persuade them through rational argument and evidence. We shall see!
sarah
100,000 jobs have been lost both directly and indirectly thanks to the smoking ban. More than 8000 licensed venues have closed, since the ban was introduced in England. Those that smoke are no longer made welcome, in public houses or infact in any public buildings and have had their social lives ruined now, for four years in a row. Well done Ash. That really is something to celebrate !!!
And of course anyone that opposes your views is a representative of big tobacco and no one else could possibly hold a view on this one !
Stephen Brown
I quote the final sentence in the article above:
“The British public are enjoying the benefits of smokefree drinking and dining and there is little appetite for a return to the bad old days of smoke-filled pubs.”
Permit me to introduce you to the “Smoky-Drinky” phenomenon.
A smoky-drinky is a gathering of like-minded people who meet in PRIVATE premises, bringing with them their own choice of drinks to consume. They drink and SMOKE and converse in a convivial atmosphere so lacking in the moribund public houses nearby.
The informal group with which I associate now has the use of a fairly large PRIVATE indoor space where we used to meet together once a week or so. The informal group has become so popular that one can now drop in (bringing one’s own drink, of course) on any evening and be assured of some fine company not one of whom objects to SMOKING indoors.
There is no formal organisation involved, we are all acknowledged friends of the owner of the PRIVATE space and we all delight in making a mockery of the smoking ban in pubs.
To my certain knowledge the concept of “Smoky-Drinkys” is spreading far and wide quite spontaneously! Long may it continue to do so, and long may it continue to make a complete mockery of the fatuous figures given in the above article.
Northern Worker
I’m a non-smoker but I strongly object to the smoking ban. It’s a matter of personal freedom and personal choices. If a landlord wishes to allow smoking on his or her privately-owned premises that’s a personal choice. Similarly people can choose whether to go to the pub. Choice. Freedom of the individual.
As for the so-called facts supporting the ban, these have been thoroughly fisked and been found wanting. As for the case that it is other factors closing our pubs, working mens’ clubs and bingo halls, clearly the recession, greedy pubcos and cheap supermarket booze have had an effect. But the decline in pub numbers started after the ban and before the recession. As for cheap booze, that’s always been there, as have greedy pubcos.
Let’s face it, fake charities like ASH – paid for with our taxes – want to restrict our freedom. They, and their mates at Alcohol Concern and elsewhere, will never be happy until we are all controlled.
Choice!