Bruce wrote:
> Not according to the publicans around this neck of the woods it 
hasn't. As
> it happens, I was talking with the landlord of my local about this 
very
> issue earlier today and he confirmed what I said and then some. 
>From the
> horses' mouth, his trade has been hammered by the smoking ban and 
he tells
> me that he's far from being alone - most of the pubs in the area, 
both rural
> and urban, are suffering badly. 

Surely we have to be careful here. It is a definite fact that pubs 
are closing down at a very rapid rate. However, to lump that decline 
totally on the smoking ban might be too simplistic.
 
1. We've seen the rise in cheap booze available from the supermarkets.
2. We've seen significant tax increases on beer and spirits by our 
dear Chancellors over the years while supermarkets have managed to 
keep cheap booze cheap.
3. The general recession and cut back in consumer spending has also 
occurred over a significant part of the same period as the smoking 
ban.


> Of course, the anti-smokers will NEVER accept any possibility of 
this being
> the case, just as they never accepted the possibility of a sensible
> compromise. 
> 
> My local, as with many others, could very easily have been altered 
to
> provide a smoking room adequately separated from the non-smoking 
areas. In
> fact, it already had been long before the ban came into force. 
Smokers, and
> their companions, could smoke in warmth and comfort. Non-smokers 
could sit
> in warmth and comfort *and*, glory of glories, without having to 
breath in
> smoke.

Not all pubs could separate their seating areas/rooms as you describe 
and, therefore, it would have meant a pub by pub inspection to check 
whether each individual establishment could, or could not, have 
complied with the new rules.

> But no, only a total draconian ban will do. And to illustrate how 
stupid it
> can get, the landlord of whom I speak cannot even smoke in his 
*private*
> upstairs flat above the pub which he owns outright. Apparently, the 
corridor
> and stairway between his flat and the public areas of the pub 
are "too
> short".

Now that is a very silly ruling. I can sympathise with his 
frustration.


The pub that I frequent has, for as long as I've known it, had a ban 
on smoking downstairs. They then introduced into all the pubs (for it 
is part of a small, privately owned chain) a complete smoking ban 
many months ahead of the legal ban. It did have a slight affect on 
sales at one time but now the only difference that I notice is that 
the floor outside the pub is covered in dog ends, despite ashtrays 
being provided and the area swept regularly.
Roger

Reply via email to