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”
Frank
Ah, more taxpayer funded gunge from Linda Bauld, Amanda Sandford and Kellner. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, eh? Poor Jill Pell, she must feel left out but I’m sure the taxpayer’s got something lined up for her. Still, it’ll impress their unquestioning and slavish mates in the DoH and APPG and that’s all that counts to them. Probably get another award from Milton next rear!
db
The Bauld report is an insult to the many 1000’s of business owners, staff and patrons (including non smokers) who have fallen victim to one of the worst and dishonest laws of recent times. Not exactly overflowing with evidence, but padded out with estimates, guesstimates and multiple excuses for limited data, hence the need to resort to referencing non UK countries and other irrelevant information (e.g. what on earth has a reduction of child exposure to SHS smoke got to do with a ban in workplaces?). A paltry two and half pages of utter waffle (just over 1000 words) devoted to the effect on the hospitality industry. I’m surprised ASH draw attention to it. On the other hand, I suppose they’d argue that it adheres to their standard required level of professional integrity.
Neil E Done
What a load of bitching.
Why not let your ‘new data’ and accusations be put to the test by coming out from behind your Tobacco Control shield where only your friends and your stakeholders are permitted a voice. Of course you get what data you want because your friends run so many university tobacco control departments and even a major polling company.
Why not admit you and yours are blatant front-line ambassadors for pharmaceutical nicotine producers. Your allies are tainted with benefit from them as paymasters. You even have direct lobbying contact with your pals at the DoH who willingly spend the Country’s limited funds on your useless ‘solutions’.
Your new data is simply a series of insults and rants against any who question your integrity and a signal of your willingness to further denormalise (your 22% of) the population who disagree with the ban.
Your calls may stand up to the scrutiny of your friends but you haven’t the guts to face those who question you without resorting to name calling.
Chris
Articles like this show ASH to be suffering a complete burn out.
ASH noun – the white or grayish powder remaining after something has been thoroughly burned. Time to spread ASH’s ashes even if it creates a cloud of air particulates!
Grouchy Marx
Amanda; told you so! Note that no-one has yet come up with a counter-argument, as opposed to an angry rant …