Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Why did the smoking ban kill pubs?
30 Answers
I've heard this said over and over again, but why? Surely people having to go outside to smoke hasnt stopped them going out and meeting friends in pubs. What do smokers do now for social interaction?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Booldawg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The smoking ban has most definitely had a negative impact on pub custom - and any spin employed by anti-smokers, the government and health watchdogs to the contrary are lies.
The thing that really annoyed me about this ill-thought out piece of legislation was the all encompassing nature of the ban.
I can understand a ban in pubs dedicated to food and even to pubs where 'pub-grub' is served - nobody wants to be clouded in smoke while they are eating - but surely it is not beyond the wit of solomon to allow landlords to make up their own minds, particularly in pubs where food is not served, or only served up to a certain time, or ensure proper ventilated areas etc..., the arguments for outweigh the arguments against.
Perhaps we should adopt a more continental approach - the Germans and French simply ignored it. (In fact, I believe the Germans have repealed this ridiculous law).
The thing that really annoyed me about this ill-thought out piece of legislation was the all encompassing nature of the ban.
I can understand a ban in pubs dedicated to food and even to pubs where 'pub-grub' is served - nobody wants to be clouded in smoke while they are eating - but surely it is not beyond the wit of solomon to allow landlords to make up their own minds, particularly in pubs where food is not served, or only served up to a certain time, or ensure proper ventilated areas etc..., the arguments for outweigh the arguments against.
Perhaps we should adopt a more continental approach - the Germans and French simply ignored it. (In fact, I believe the Germans have repealed this ridiculous law).
flip_flop
I think you are forgetting why this ban came about. It was to protect people working in pubs from the affects of others smoking. Nothing to do with food or eating.
The authorities believe it is proven that smoke harms others, so an employer is leaving themselves open to litigation if in the future, one of their employees becomes ill.
The smoking ban has certainly not helped pub businesses, but it is just one of a number of factors affecting those businesses. The Pub business was in a sharp decline, a long time before the smoking ban.
I think you are forgetting why this ban came about. It was to protect people working in pubs from the affects of others smoking. Nothing to do with food or eating.
The authorities believe it is proven that smoke harms others, so an employer is leaving themselves open to litigation if in the future, one of their employees becomes ill.
The smoking ban has certainly not helped pub businesses, but it is just one of a number of factors affecting those businesses. The Pub business was in a sharp decline, a long time before the smoking ban.
Afraid not, flip_flop.
There is no suitable system of ventilation and extraction which will keep pub staff free of smoke whilst the pub is open and people within it are smoking. It is far more hazardous to health to breath in tobacco smoke than to be exposed to low level paint fumes such as those found in a car bodyshop away from the area where cars are being sprayed. Nonetheless stringent rules apply to those places which effectively seal the painting area off from the rest of the building. Huge high powered extractors are provided to purge the atmosphere and staff inside are required to wear effective breathing masks.
Everybody knows that strict rules exist on sites where asbestos is likely to be encountered. The list of other situations where stringent rules are in place to protect workers in hazardopus situations is endless.
Nobody would dream of arguing about these regulations. But somehow it seems quite OK to some people to expect pub staff to be exposed to high levels of dangerous carcinogenic toxins without a whimper.
I am no fan of the �nanny� state, but the protection of workers from tobacco smoke in all workplaces was long overdue.
The idea put forward by davees that people should be free to work in the environment they choose is fallacious. It is not a choice open to employees. Employers have a duty to provide their employees with a safe working environment.
There is no suitable system of ventilation and extraction which will keep pub staff free of smoke whilst the pub is open and people within it are smoking. It is far more hazardous to health to breath in tobacco smoke than to be exposed to low level paint fumes such as those found in a car bodyshop away from the area where cars are being sprayed. Nonetheless stringent rules apply to those places which effectively seal the painting area off from the rest of the building. Huge high powered extractors are provided to purge the atmosphere and staff inside are required to wear effective breathing masks.
Everybody knows that strict rules exist on sites where asbestos is likely to be encountered. The list of other situations where stringent rules are in place to protect workers in hazardopus situations is endless.
Nobody would dream of arguing about these regulations. But somehow it seems quite OK to some people to expect pub staff to be exposed to high levels of dangerous carcinogenic toxins without a whimper.
I am no fan of the �nanny� state, but the protection of workers from tobacco smoke in all workplaces was long overdue.
The idea put forward by davees that people should be free to work in the environment they choose is fallacious. It is not a choice open to employees. Employers have a duty to provide their employees with a safe working environment.
Are we to eliminate risk from every aspect of life? Van drivers stand a discernible chance of being injured whilst van driving. Police stand a discernible chance of being injured whilst policing. Members of the armed forces, the army in particular, face more than a discernible chance of being injured whilst doing their job. A&E Nurses and Doctors stand a pretty good chance of being injured whilst doing their job.......the list is endless.
Surely, to a degree, volenti non fit injuria must play a part? Shouldn't it?
This is nannying at its most extreme.
Surely, to a degree, volenti non fit injuria must play a part? Shouldn't it?
This is nannying at its most extreme.
-- answer removed --
how many deaths by drink driving ?
how many deaths by smokers driving ?
Studies carried out in the UK have shown that alcohol misuse costs the NHS up to �3bn a year - between 2% and 12% of total NHS hospital expenditure.
Further costs to society include �3bn a year from sickness and absenteeism from work, premature deaths, accidents and alcohol-related crime.
::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
how many deaths by smokers driving ?
Studies carried out in the UK have shown that alcohol misuse costs the NHS up to �3bn a year - between 2% and 12% of total NHS hospital expenditure.
Further costs to society include �3bn a year from sickness and absenteeism from work, premature deaths, accidents and alcohol-related crime.
::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Presumably because there is no punitive tax on food, flip_flop.
Smokers may or may not be net contributors to the NHS. I believe that is arguable but is anyway beside the point.
It is the effects that smokers have upon non-smokers and in particular (as far as this question goes) upon employees of pub companies who are exposed to their fumes that were of concern when the legislation was framed.
Your citing of the �volenti non fit injuria� defence (that is, that the employee willingly undertook the risks presented to him by his employment) would not hold water. It has long been a legal assumption that whilst employees may understand the risks involved in their jobs, of necessity they usually have to work and therefore do not assume these risks voluntarily. In short, employers cannot avoid their responsibilities by suggesting that the employee was willing to undertake hazardous tasks, the risks of which could be lessened.
The examples you quote of risks involved in other activities are not appropriate. To take the van driver, it is not possible for the employer to reduce the risks posed by other road users with whom his driver may collide. All he can do is ensure his own driver is trained to as high a standard as possible. Similarly the police and army personnel may fall foul of third parties who may cause them injury. These risks can be reduced by suitable training, but cannot be eliminated.
Smoking in enclosed places is different. The risks to staff can be eliminated, and indeed should have been by employers without the need for legislation. They were not, so hence the need for the ban.
Smokers may or may not be net contributors to the NHS. I believe that is arguable but is anyway beside the point.
It is the effects that smokers have upon non-smokers and in particular (as far as this question goes) upon employees of pub companies who are exposed to their fumes that were of concern when the legislation was framed.
Your citing of the �volenti non fit injuria� defence (that is, that the employee willingly undertook the risks presented to him by his employment) would not hold water. It has long been a legal assumption that whilst employees may understand the risks involved in their jobs, of necessity they usually have to work and therefore do not assume these risks voluntarily. In short, employers cannot avoid their responsibilities by suggesting that the employee was willing to undertake hazardous tasks, the risks of which could be lessened.
The examples you quote of risks involved in other activities are not appropriate. To take the van driver, it is not possible for the employer to reduce the risks posed by other road users with whom his driver may collide. All he can do is ensure his own driver is trained to as high a standard as possible. Similarly the police and army personnel may fall foul of third parties who may cause them injury. These risks can be reduced by suitable training, but cannot be eliminated.
Smoking in enclosed places is different. The risks to staff can be eliminated, and indeed should have been by employers without the need for legislation. They were not, so hence the need for the ban.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.