Benscomputer.no-ip.org - The effects of Brtains Smoking Ban

Britains Smoking Ban has now been in full force for a number of months, and the effects are becoming more and more vivid. As many will recall the ban was largely supported by an outspoken group called ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), I have sent an email to them with a few question that I would be interested in hearing the answers to. These will be revealed later in this article.

First lets look at the reasoning behind the smoking ban, secondhand smoke is the smoke that escapes from the burning end of a cigarette, it has not been filtered and so contains more of the dangerous chemicals than the smoke inhaled by the smoker does.
Some people may recall that Roy Castle died some time ago from cancer contracted through Passive smoking. He worked in a good number of Nightclubs and bars, and so was regularly in a smokey environment. Campaigners such as ASH wanted to prevent the 'dangers' of secondhand smoke. Despite these good intentions, one cannot help feel that for some smoking was simply a good political leg up the ladder. We are now seeing the same focus on alcohol and 'fatty foods.'

The original proposition was for an 'allout' ban, where it would be illegal to smoke in any licensed premises, workplace or property other than your own home. A compromise was then drawn up in the face of fierce opposition, and was to be limited only to Pubs that served food, and several other types of premises. This was then in turn opposed by the campaigners who stated that only a blanket ban could be effective.

After much debating (including whether 'Member only clubs' could still allow smoking - No) a blanket ban was selected. As of the 1st of July 2007 it became illegal to smoke in any workplace (including exit/entrance paths) or in any licensed establishment. It was decided that some criteria should be drawn up to define where smoking could be allowed, whilst they are somewhat complex the basic outline is that the 'premises' must be at least 30% open and be that way for the larger proportion of its use. So-called 'Rabbit Hutches' are allowed for use by smokers, however many pubs have experienced difficulties in extending their premises licenses to cover these, and so smokers are unable to take their drinks with them.

A good example of the issues caused by this ban is Britain smallest Pub. The Nutshell in Bury St Edmunds has floor space not much larger than a pool table (bar side) so there is very little room to leave your drink inside whilst you nip outside for a quick cigarette. However the local council has declared the area an Alcohol Free Zone, so it is illegal to take your drink out onto the pavement with you. In addition to which, despite the littering fine being levied against 'butt droppers' many councils have not installed suitable receptacles for cigarette ends. Many businesses are being told they require planning permission to place an ashtray outside their business, so smokers have very little choice but to drop their cigarette ends. Bury St Edmunds is again one of the worst I have seen for this issue.

At the time it was introduced the Smoking Ban was a source of great controversy as smokers felt that it went to far and removed their right to free will. Some Non-smokers agreed and supported the smokers opposing the ban, whilst others felt that the ban had not gone far enough.
A smoking rights group announced in 2007 that it was opposing the ban in the High Court under Human Rights legislation, whilst a similar case was also being undertaken in Scotland. Scotlands smoking ban came into effect on the 26th of March 2007.
Since the ban we have also seen some extra anti-smoking legislation, the legal age for the purchasing of cigarettes rose from 16 to 18 on the 1st of October 2007. This move was not advertised widely enough to make all the relevant consumers aware, and many staff are still reporting issues with customers who "Did not know." Despite the lack of knowledge surrounding the change, Trading Standards and the Licensing Authorities have been very quick to despatch Test Purchasers to ensure compliance with the new legislation.

So what effects have these changes had on our society? I have already hinted at the difficulties that Pubs and other On-licensed establishments have encountered, but these issues stretch so much wider than smokers not being able to drink whilst they smoke. I am told that there has been an increase in the number of spiked drinks being reported. It is quite logical that as these customers now have to leave their drinks unattended whilst they go for a smoke, some of the young ladies may well return to find that their drink has had something added to it. Whilst it is logical not to leave your drink unattended, there are a great many people who will not follow this advice, and quite frankly they should not be required to leave their drinks unattended. If people do not want smoke in pubs then councils should be willing to extend licenses to allow drinking directly outside the pub. We are not talking about an extension of hundreds of yards, but simply of several yards.
    Unfortunately this is still not the toughest of issues imposed upon the On-trade by the smoking ban. Some may recall seeing in the news that surveys showed that a high percentage of non-smokers had stated that they would be more likely to visit the pub if it was smoke free. Some even said that they did not visit their local pub purely because it wasn't smoke free.
    The ban has come into effect, and the On-trade have seen a dip in sales, the non-smokers that said they would visit the pubs are not doing so, and many smokers are now drinking at home so that they can enjoy a cigarette and a beer at the same time.
    An example of this is the Elephant and Castle in Bury St Edmunds, since the onset of the ban they have lost approximately five hundred pounds a week in trade, and will soon be closing. This is a friendly pub, with good ales on tap but it has been forsaken by its customers and by those who promised to become part of its customer base if it was smoke free. I cannot blame the smokers for drinkign at home, I know that the greatest pull towards nicotine is when you have a pint of cold ale in your hand.
    If Non-smokers wanted smoke free pubs, then they have them. But through disuse the number of pubs is declining, those that said they would use the pubs need to get up and use them before a part of traditional English heritage dissappears once and for all.

Another interesting effect from the ban is a change in societies view on smokers. Smoking is becoming a bit of a taboo subject now, with non-smokers (middleaged women are the worst in my experience) being very vocal, and often very abusive, when seeing a smoker enjoying a cigarette in the street. I am probably not the only person to have been smoking a cigarette whilst using an ATM only to hear a forced coughing and a gruff "would you nto smoke that horrible thing so close to me?" despite the fact that it is them that have come and stood so close to you.
    I have not yet heard of an actual event of smoking-related hate crime, but given the way that British Society deals with it issues, I imagine it won't be long before the two sides are loggerheads.
    At the same time, I notice that a lot of the older smokers are forming a natural affinity for other smokers. I have had a fair few conversations with people that I would not necessarily normally speak to, interesting though they were the only thing we had in common was that we both smoked. Being a smoker in Britain today is somewhat akin to being abroad, as soon as you run into another Brit (or in some cases anyone who talks English fluently) you will instantly start talking to them about anything.

I would like to interupt the article here with a story I heard of a local pub, I found it quite amusing though I am sure others may not. The local pub (I won't say which as I have applied for a job there!) has a small garden, and during the wet weather the smokers were huddled outside getting their nicotine fix. The non-smokers were sat inside in the dry and warm enjoying their beverages and there was very little issue with the situation as the non-smokers saw it. But then something terrible happened! The Sun came out and we had a few weeks of nice weather, the landlady then received complaints from non-smokers that they couldn't sit and enjoy the sun because all the smokers were in the beer garden.
With this in mind, I think we can safely say that a lot of non-smokers want to have their cake, and eat it!

One of the primary driving forces behind the ban was, of course, health. It is an argument that I find quite interesting, whilst I will not claim that smoking is good for you, I find it quite low on my list of priorities. How many people do you know that walk to work? Ask them what they think when they walk up the side of a busy road at rush hour, I find that nothing restricts my breathing quite like the heavy smog of vehicle emissions from the lines of stationary cars. We know that petrol emissions contain carcinogens, yet many people are focused on smoking. A cigarette will only burn for so long, however a cars petrol tank will easily outlast a cigarette, even at high revs. I find it highly unlikely that a cigarette could output more cancer causing chemicals than a cars exhaust on a second by second basis.
The Government (along with pressure groups) are telling the nation to share cars when driving to work, and to reduce fuel consumption as much as possible, both for the health of the environment and the people. But what if the Government were to take the step they took with smoking? What if they were to actually legislate to require you to share a car at rush hour? The simple answer is there would be uproar, it effects a huge percentage of the nations population. However it would be introduced to encourage health benefits, and would certainly save some money.
    The difference here (aside from the fact the Government have no intention of doing the above, so far as I know) is that the percentage of the population such a change would affect is not a minority. Therefore it cannot so easily be pushed onto them, the smoking ban was a lifestyle changing event for many smokers. No longer can a pint be enjoyed alongside a cigarette unless you are at home. The nation would not allow the Government to implement a solo passenger ban, but through inactivity allowed them to push a ban onto a relative minority.

    During a discussion with a customer earlier today I had an interesting point made to me. I would like to share that with you now as it certainly seems logical. She told me that she had been smoking for more than 60 years and had never had a 'smoking-related disease', she ascribed this largely to her diet. She lives of a very rich and varied diet and in all honesty is probably healthier than I am. She pointed out to me that I have very little hope of being able to say the same thing in 60 years time, not because smoking has got any worse for you but simply because everytime the Government puts up the tax on cigarettes it restricts the diet you can afford a little more. If you are a smoker ask yourself this, if not then ask a smoker. You have worked a long hard day and have enough money for either a pack of cigarettes or a sandwich, which do you buy? Most would say the cigarettes, partially because they help to supress your appetitte so you can enjoy your nicotine fix and supress those hungry feelings.
    If you look at the cost of manufacturing and packaging cigarettes, if the duty was not set at such an exorbitant level it would be quite possible to buy both the cigarettes and the sandwich.
    The actual effect of the Governments duty rises on cigarettes is two-fold, it increases the funds going into the Treasury, and it reduces the effective spending power of the younger generation of smokers.

Many will respond to this by questioning why smokers do not simply quit smoking, there are a great many answers to this question. The main answer though is that people simply do not want to, as alien a concept as it seems to non-smokers, smoking is an enjoyable habit, and many believe it to be worth the alleged risks. Your priorities do of course change throughout your lifetime, but many people feel that if you spend your life avoiding anything 'dangerous' then you will have wasted your life through paranoia. I myself am a strong believer that you should live each day to it's fullest, smoking will seem like a very small issue if you are hit by a bus tomorrow.

I do not condone smokers who deliberately smoke around non-smokers, however I do feel that there should be an element of choice. There is no need for all pubs to be smoke free, seperate smoking rooms would have been sufficient, in my eyes the ban has gone too far.

There are of course positive elements to the ban, statements have been released stating that it is believed that 'smoking-related' diseases will drop by a reasonably large percentage within the next few years. Whilst it seems like a large change to make to peoples lives for estimated benefits, the ban has not long been in force so it is unlikely that any accurate figures could be released. In fact we could not know the true impact of the ban for many years to come, I suspect however that the change will be negligble. People are still smoking, and will continue to exercise their right to do so. The Government are highly unlikely to ban smoking outright because they are themselves addicted to the tax revenue.

Many people will find it difficult to disagree that smokers are a minority, however unlike other minorities in the UK, the differences in our lifestyles that make us a minority are not protected. In fact they have been actively legislated against, a gay man/woman simply has a different sexual orientation to what society deems as normal, and so leads a different lifestyle. They are protected by legislation to ensure that their rights are not infringed. Whilst an extreme example, I would say that smokers are very similar in that the 'minority' spans a vast range of cultures, and is defined by one small difference in our lifestyle.

The most positive effect of the ban that I have noticed is the kinship that is developing amongst smokers. When stood outside in the rain for a cigarette, many people forget whether someone is gay, or from a different culture and simply talk to each other. In some ways the ban has actually pulled smokers closer together, and if there are indeed plans to ban smoking outright, the Anti-smoking campaigners may well find that smokers are not nearly so complacent next time.

ASH have not yet responded to my email, so for the time being I will simply post the questions I have posed.

Q1: As you are no doubt aware, surveys conducted before the implementation of the ban showed that many non-smokers would visit the pub if it was smoke free. Since the ban the on-trade has seen a decline in sales, leading to closure. Has the ban had a wider ranging negative effect than you expected?

Q2: My journey to work consists of walking along a heavily congested road,would you say that secondhand smoke poses a greater risk to my health than these emissions?

Q3: Do you believe that if the Government were to legislate against (for example) drivers commuting without a passenger in their vehicle, that this would receive much more opposition than the smoking ban?

Q4: Given the health implications of both smoking and vehicle emissions would you agree that the smoking ban met less resistance because it was only a lifestyle change for a relatively small proportion of the population?

Q5: What does ASH intend to do next? Is their any intention to lobby for an outright ban on smoking?

Q6: What is ASH's Position on smokers in the street?

Q7: Has ASH found any positive effects of the ban that they would like to share/discuss?

Q8: Are there any statements that you would like me to publish?