Labour's smoking ban killed the British pub

[BrilloPad]

I'll say it again. If there were separate smoking rooms you wouldn't be affected so there would be nothing to "put up with".

Whats wrong with them hanging around outside the pub looking like lepers?

[minestrone]

I could not see more than a few meters and my eyes stung.

Like reading one of Gittins Gal's posts then

[Troll]

Recently in pub / restaurant in Austria I was reminded what life before the smoking ban was like.

Was like, I could not see more than a few meters and my eyes stung.

aka "atmosphere" albeit a tad smelly - but surely better than the sterile, bland themed parked hostelries we have now?

[CheeseSlice]

I'll say it again. If there were separate smoking rooms you wouldn't be affected so there would be nothing to "put up with".

What was the old saying again? "like having a peeing section in a swimming pool"

[hyperD]

Pubs were dying before the ban.

There was a distinct increase in closures immediately after the smoking ban.

Originally the law was supposed to be made so it was up to the publican to decide whether his establishment was smoking or not, but the anti-smoking groups lobbied to overturn this for a ban on all pubs, which is a shame, as once again, choice was removed.

Personally I prefer pubs without smoking, but can't stand the stale smell of pubs now, and most of them have ended up as excuses for crèches and tulip food.

Still, homebrewing has become more popular and some people are now having what is called "smokey-drinkies" whereby a group of people gather at someone's house to have a chat, puff and drink.

Funnily enough, the precursors to the original pub! Strange old world...

[BrilloPad]

What was the old saying again? "like having a peeing section in a swimming pool"

So the whole lot then? At least according to that Olympic Swimmer.

[alluvial]

Funnily enough I was having a discussion about this today in the office.

In my view, Labour's poorly thought out ban coupled with their freeing up of the supermarkets to churn out cheap booze at all hours of the day has killed off a huge part of traditional British society.

Pre-ban I used to frequent a pub local to the office I worked in and it was a given that it would be packed out every night. I finished the gig and started a new one back at the same site post-ban and the change was remarkable. I could often go in the same pub and be the only one in there. Chatting to the landlord, he told me that it happened as soon as the ban kicked in and his pub just emptied.

As GG said, what was wrong with allowing publicans to set aside dedicated smoking areas? Ban smoking where food was being served or where children were allowed in?

[TykeMerc]

There was a distinct increase in closures immediately after the smoking ban.

The pub round the corner from me closed within a month of the ban, all the locals, staff and the landlord smoked in there and people simply didn't bother to nip in to read the paper with a pint or call in after a dog walk etc, it never had a busy fri/Sat night trade, it was a local.

Personally I prefer pubs without smoking, but can't stand the stale smell of pubs now, and most of them have ended up as excuses for crèches and tulip food.

Very true

Still, homebrewing has become more popular and some people are now having what is called "smokey-drinkies" whereby a group of people gather at someone's house to have a chat, puff and drink.

Funnily enough, the precursors to the original pub! Strange old world...

The irony of that is noticeable

[expat]

Inneresting article by Peter Oborne in the Telegraph.

I don't smoke myself but I don't see why smoking couldn't be allowed to continue in separate well ventilated rooms. Ostensibly the ban was to safeguard people who work in pubs, so they claimed. Kind of back fired a bit really considering how many have lost their jobs through pub closures.

Surely there must be a middle ground somewhere but of course there will be no compromise whenever the interfering tentacles of the nanny state are involved. Besides, a recent report by the American Cancer Institute concluded that second hand smoke does not cause cancer. Make of that what you will but there's a good article on that by James Delingpole here.

.. but actually it was to stop people smoking. That's why no "solution" however reasonable will be considered.

Personally I don't mind the government either protecting the health of workers in potentially smoky areas, or targeting the practice of smoking in general; but I seriously mind them targeting one while claiming that they are doing the other. That is lying to us and governments should suffer punishment for doing that.

[Wanderer]

I'm a militant anti-smoker. I hate that tulip, it stinks and it makes my eyes and lungs hurt to breathe it. It gets into your hair and clothes and it stinks.

a recent report by the American Cancer Institute concluded that second hand smoke does not cause cancer. Make of that what you will

Yeah, the anti-smokers have been rumbled.

Now that the ban is in place, who cares if there is probably no link between passive smoking and cancer. Does anyone think Jorge Dubya Bush and his poodle give a tulip that there were no WMD in Iraq? Hell no. They used it to get the job done and it's the same thing with passive smoking being a reason for banning it.

Good job well done I say, I don't see any chance that they are going to repeal the law and go back to stinky pubs/restaurants. Hell, it's even made smoking so socially unacceptable that most people wouldn't even consider smoking in their houses whereas before they thought it was perfectly reasonable to light up inside.