MP demands smoking be re-introduced to pubs and clubs

7 July 2010

Bitterwallet - Brian BinleyThousands of pubs have closed in the last year, and it's all the fault of the smokers. Fact. At least, it's fact according to MP Brian Binley - he's mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore.

According to esteemed organ The Northampton Chronicle & Echo, the member of Parliament for Northampton South has tabled a motion calling for a review of the smoking ban "to stop the closure of so many pubs and clubs", including the introduction of smoking rooms and segregated areas with smoke extraction systems. Because smoke can't travel through doorways, see - that's science. Says the right honourable gentleman:

"The then Health Minister, John Reid, promised a review would be held three years afterwards, but the Government is now saying that it has no plans to do so.

"That makes me angry."

Angry Brian. The thing is Brian, I don't know of a single smoker who stopped going to the pub because of the smoking ban. Admittedly that may just be me, but then I also know a few people who go less because they've been bitten on the arse by the deepest recession in decades. Maybe that has something to do with it. And I've heard plenty of landlords and breweries denouncing the huge increases in tax on alcohol over the past three years, warning that they'd be put out of business by them. Plenty also blame the widespread availability of cheap supermarket booze. And then there's the rise of pub chains such as Wetherspoons and their bulk-buying ability which undercuts their competitors. Perhaps you missed that, too. As an aside, there also seems to be several benefits to a smoking ban - namely the body of evidence stating that smoking bans improve health, reduce the number of heart attacks and so on.

Next week, Brian Binley demands a return to proper Victorian values to keep public houses afloat, by insisting whores be allowed to ply their trade at the bar and the price of a pint be capped at 29 pence.

63 comments

  • The B.
    Mr McGee, don't make him angry, you won't like him when he's angry.
  • mizzle
    They say "a picture speaks 1000 words" that says one - "nonce"
  • Meh
    He clearly smokes cigars and enjoys whiskey straight; just look at his face.
  • james d.
    Firstly, if a review was promised it should be delivered regardless of your personal opinions of the validity of the smoking ban. Citing the reduction in heart attacks by the smoking ban is absurd as you could by the same logic close all McDonalds and ban donuts. Smoke extraction systems are used successfully in many countries. This seems quite simple to me, legislate a level of acceptable smoke concentration, require a club/pub to be below that. If they can create a system that maintains this then good for them, if not then no smoky. To pay for the administration and regulation of this system charge bars and clubs for smoking licences. Who is the loser in that system?
  • Matt
    I actually go to the pub MORE often now that I can go in for a drink and not come out with a sore throat and smelling like an ashtry!
  • Spark
    Bollocks off, we've only just gotten used to these places being smoke-free zones and from trips to video arcades in Asia and restaurants in Spain I've realised how much better this law has actually made indoor social environments for people although I was an opponent of the law when it was first introduced.
  • Laurz
    @james dewitt. The difference between you eating a burger from mcdonalds and you smoking near me is that you eating a mcdonalds isn't damaging to my health at all, you smoking next to me is slowly killing me. Smoke extraction systems don't work completely, we all know they dont. Yes they might get rid of all the visible smoke but they you go into any smoking room in the country (or if you did before they were thankfully closed) and you'd see yellow walls regardless of whether there are extraction systems or not. Also as is pointed out in the article, smoke and fumes and cancer causing stuff can travel through doorways so every time someone opens that smoking room door everyone else gets a lung full of cancer. Lovely. And who is going to be the poor bastard who has to go into these rooms to clean them? Lastly, so what if a review was promised? A review was promised by a government who was making promises left right and centre that it knew it couldnt keep. I'm pretty sure that the government in charge now didn't make the promises so if you wan't someone to blame for a false promise being made I suggest you look at those tossers that got the country into so much and ended their tenure in charge by promising the grants and loans of billions of pounds to people safe in the knowledge that when it came to actually paying these things out it would be the next government who took the shit for it.
  • Paul S.
    James, the point of the story (there is one, if you look hard enough) is that Brian Binley believes that thousands of pubs have closed as a result of the smoking ban and will continue to do so - seemingly ignorant to all the other factors that are far more likely to have caused their demise. My point would be that this is horseshit. Citing facts about the improvement in health was, as the article says, "an aside". It's there to suggest there are benefits to the smoking ban, amongst the long list of reasons why pubs might be struggling other than a smoking ban. There's no loser in the system you suggest, but that wasn't the point either.
  • Laurz
    Same here Matt, I go to the pub far more often than I used to. I find it laughable that pubs closing are blaming it on the smoking ban, erm no retards its called a recession. Pubs are closing just like shops are, hairdressers, joinery companies etc. Its because people are tightening their belt, not because some dirty smelly bastard cant kill people while having a pint.
  • John P.
    @james dewitt The only acceptable level of smoke in any indoor environment is none Go puff away outside...or stop. Your choice. (although I accept smokers are not big on choice, preferring to inflict their smoke on anyone and everyone around them) I do, however, agree with your heart attack/smoking correlation comment.
  • ButterMan
    Shock horror! Our ruling elite is made up of red-faced twats who wouldn't know "science" or "evidence" or "critical thinking" if it stuffed an orange in their mouth and hanged them while they wore fishnets. 21st Century Democracy, ladies and gentleman. Now pay your taxes and keep voting.
  • Zleet
    @james dewitt 'Citing the reduction in heart attacks by the smoking ban is absurd as you could by the same logic close all McDonalds and ban donuts.' Hardly a fair comparison unless you walk around Mcdonalds forcing half chewed burgers down unwilling peoples throats.
  • james d.
    if smoke extraction systems dont work then they wouldnt be allowed, its not that hard to test if they dont work. I am simply proposing that if a company CAN create a system that does work it should be allowed to implement it. Anyway they have smoking booths in Swedish airports and those seem to work perfectly. As for the "only acceptable amount is none" why, surely it should be acceptable if it is at a level that does not harm the health of others. What is your reason for only accepting none. Should I be allowed to stop you driving because your car fumes damage my health? As for you Paul, that was the point of the press release. However you seem to be very selective with accepting correlations that match your own pre-conceived ideas and rejecting correlations that do not. over the last 2-3 years smoking has been banned in pubs Pubs have made less money in the last 2-3 years Therefore the smoking ban is the cause Paul: I DISPUTE THIS over the last 2-3 years smoking has been banned in pubs There have been less hear attacks in the last 2-3 years Therefore the smoking ban reduced heart attacks Paul: Whilst this is exactly the same logic I accept this statement without question. Try this one out for size Pubs have made less money in the last 2-3 years There have been less hear attacks in the last 2-3 years Therefore going to the pub less resulted in less heart attacks. BAN PUBS
  • james d.
    As for those refuting my McDonalds comparison, i was making the point in response to the statement it worked therefore it is a good thing. Besides, does anyone really think that passive smoking can give a person a heart attack but by not passively smoking for a year or two you would avoid that heart attack? Cmon, that's ridiculous.
  • Justin M.
    This MP, supposedly a representative of the people, wants to put business interests (i.e. money) ahead of health (i.e. human beings). What a surprise. He should either support the needs of the majority of his constituents or shut up. I don't go to pubs because the decor is usually trapped in the design ethics of generations that are already long dead. Modern venues get my cash. If pubs want to survive, they need to invest and modernise. Ignoring the wants of your customers can only lead to a business's doom. Besides, the demise of the pub has seen the rise of the coffee shop. If you can't be landlord of a pub anymore, go manage a Starbucks.
  • Big G.
    @ james dewitt "Who is the loser in that system?" The punters who will end up paying for this in the price of their drinks.
  • Laurz
    That's amazing james, how did you manage to create that optical illusions? You posted a novel and yet somehow the words managed to rearrange themselves in my mind so all I could see was Posted by james dewitt | July 7th, 2010 at 12:08 pm I am a cock. A selfish cock. Are you the inventor of those magic eye picture books?
  • Daniel Z.
    Hi Paul, You forgot to mention being raped £5 for a pint of eggy beer in your list of reasons people don't go to the pub any more ;-)
  • james d.
    Laurz, perhaps you should actually read what I wrote. Not once have I said that others should have their health damaged because I choose to smoke, I have pointed out systems that could work for everyone. But the real reason the smoking ban came into effect is the government wants us all to stop smoking and I don't like them telling me what to do. You can sling insults if you like but please point out something I said that was selfish.
  • ButterMan
    "Besides, does anyone really think that passive smoking can give a person a heart attack but by not passively smoking for a year or two you would avoid that heart attack? Cmon, that’s ridiculous." You should be an MP
  • Richard M.
    Smoking is not illegal insofar as I am aware, and the rights of smokers (for they do indeed have rights, despite how it may often seem) are constantly being trampled upon by people who think their opinions rank above the consensual adults that choose to enjoy smoking. It may not be popular, however anybody who believes in equality and fairness should respect the smokers rights to smoke and perhaps drink an alcoholic drink at the same time. And, as long as there is no impact upon people who don't care for smoking, why is there any reason to oppose this? What is wrong with smokers smoking in a sealed, ventilated room, clearly signposted and entirely quarantined from any other public area where non-smokers reside? Absolutely nothing, except that it is now socially acceptable for people to rally against other people doing something that other people enjoy and they do not. There are plenty of countries still throughout the civilised world where smoking is both tolerated and enjoyed, and the overwhelming majority of these countries have a far less pronounced rate of heart disease or other (so-called) smoking related illnesses. It just is not as simple as saying that smokers have more diseases than non-smokers, this is a social issue with many more variables (such as dietary) to it than that. I don't like beards, but I accept that bearded men (and women) have to walk amongst us because there is no law to the contrary. I suggest that the author and most of the commentators above try to adopt something of a similar open-minded mentality. I thank you.
  • Laurz
    Does a beard kill innocent people then? No! Then your argument is pointless. Can you show me an example of this self cleaning, self maintaining, completely sealed room that has an airlock on it to stop fumes getting out when the door is opened please as i've never seen one. The closes i've seen is the thing in the abyss that was used for dropping the little submarine out of but i'm guessing your average village pub won't be able to afford one of these.
  • Laurz
    james dewitt you havent pointed out ANY systems that are completely sealed, completely smoke free and dont require anyone to ever set foot in them to clean them and maintain them. If you can point out one of these then i'll gladly accept that you may have a point. I was saying you were selfish because you have no problem putting an innocent persons health at risk just so that you can smoke. If that isn't selfishness then what is?
  • Daniel Z.
    James, that's ridiculous! The government doesn't want anyone to stop smoking or driving, they make far too much money out of it. It's probably the only useful thing the last government did do and it fell into line with what other countries were doing...
  • yak
    i remember when i used to smoke in pubs, it was great. dont smoke now.... dont go to the pub much either, just spend my time reading shit like this on the internet instead. how times change
  • Nobby
    > Does a beard kill innocent people then? No! Then your argument is pointless. As it's the anniversary of the 7th July bombings today ... 3 out of 4 of the bombers had beards. Therefore beards are responsible for 75% of the evil in this country. FACT. :-)
  • Richard M.
    Actually Laurz, that is a brilliantly worded and convincing... Hang on, not is isn't. You are a mental. And people have been killed by beards. But that isn't why I don't like them.
  • Laurz
    Richard it might not be worded very well but its a pretty fair argument anyway. Yes smoking rooms do have decent extraction systems sometimes but what happens when someone opens the door to go into it? Fumes get out, thats why I said have you seen any that can stop this from happening becase I havent. And obviously employees have to go into these rooms to clean them and maintain them etc, what systems have you seen that can stop this from happening because it is damaging to their health to have to go into them. So if you can get a system that stops any fumes coming out when the door is opened and that somehow self cleans itself then yes it could work and i'd have no problem at all with them being allowed in pubs or pretty much anywhere else so I ask you, have you ever seen such a system?
  • Laurz
    @Nobby, shurrup yer daft twat lol 4 out of 4 of the bombers were male. I conclude that males are evil
  • Paul S.
    Fuck me. I think reading the ass-backwards comments of James and Richards have given me cancer. Ignore the whole of the article apart from the one sentence flagged as an aside. Get back to me with something that proves all the pub closures are due to the smoking ban, and not in anyway related to the recession, taxation or competition. That's the point of the article. Four fifths of the population don't smoke. Build your "sealed, ventilated, quarantined rooms" with cutting-edge smoke filtration systems, forcing the owners to ramp up the prices of drinks for all and invariably penalising the 80 per cent who don't smoke. Because higher prices would save the British public house, wouldn't it?
  • Richard M.
    Are you suggesting Paul that four fifths of the population go to pubs?
  • Mozr
    There are so many people caught up in their own self congratulatory lifestyles. Secondary smoke? When you stop driving/riding on buses/trains I will listen to you. The fashionable causes some people jump upon... Congratulations to the MP for sticking up for people who want to live a life unfettered by state sanctioned health controls. I'll pay my taxes, you leave me the hell alone. Deal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD8bsfggCuo Enough said.
  • milky
    I enjoy watching the hardcore, hardened arteried shivering smoking bastards in sub zero temperatures still refusing to give in standing huddled blowing smoke (unfortunately) onto passers by when in canada, ..& I love smoke free pubs I can take my child into & not have to wash out my clothes due to the pervasive stench of fag smoke in my hair & clothes from even a short visit to a pub. nor rush a few pints, making it altogether more relaxing & enjoyable time spent with my family. Actually a sensible ban. As for extraction systems, they don't work properly or are not maintained, so are a sham, ventilation systems to expell fumes good & proper rely on a properly sealed environment to draw smoke out of the atmosphere, therefore minimal air movement from say customers, doors for customers etc, as every movement of a person or swing of a door shifts air around the place. I only wish the ban had been years ago I might not have given up pubbing as a social aspect due to the rough feeling of enduring so much 2nd hand smoke.
  • Roger R.
    The real problem with pubs is that the drinks are massively expensive, and public transport is shit (therefore can't get to or from them). I imagine the smoking ban has put a few people off, but probably not many more than the amount of people who now like to go to the pubs more now they are smoke free. Oh and Richard/James - there is such a place that you describe where there is ventilation, doesn't need cleaning etc. It's called the fucking outside, and yes you can smoke there so I don't see what you're winging about. In a few years time, when even more smokers have given up or are dead then I reckon the public attitude will be amazed that smoking ever was allowed. Just going to foreign countries where they don't have a ban is strange now, and to be honest it feels like they are years behind in progress. And Mozr, why have you linked to some low grade comedian?
  • milky
    As for extraction systems, they don’t work properly or are not maintained, so are a sham, ventilation systems to expell fumes good & proper rely on a properly sealed environment to draw smoke out of the atmosphere, therefore minimal air movement from say customers, doors for customers etc, as every movement of a person or swing of a door shifts air around the place. a chip controlled system would have to be changing tempo to adjust for these nuisance movements & bloody expensive as they'd all be one off designs, ceiling height, furnishings etc would all need to come into play as would fireplaces etc, ..this & more.
  • John P.
    @Mozr "There are so many people caught up in their own self congratulatory lifestyles. Secondary smoke? When you stop driving/riding on buses/trains I will listen to you" When I can bring my car/bus/train INTO the pub and drive it around, I will listen to you. Until then, keep the fuck outside.
  • Klingelton
    I personally think the anti-smoking legislation was a wonderful thing. I didn't think it at the time as i was a smoker of some 10 years. When the ban came in, i decided it was time to knock the habit on the head. I now feel much healthier and i stink less (debatable). I don't enjoy visiting an environment where people smoke. i deteste the smell. i don't know if that is magnified for me being an ex-smoker, but it's definately the case. I hate the smell of stale smoke even more, i think it's awful. For those who say pubs are trapped in oldie world decor, not true i say. shinanigans. Many pubs i go to have excellent modern decor, sell fantastic tasting beer and have a wonderful warm cosy environment. I don't get the same experience from modern bars which quite often smell of stale alcopops vomit and sweat. IMHO. best thing that ever happened to this country. it saved my life.
  • Junkyard
    Whores at the bar and 29p a pint? Brian Binley's got my vote!
  • ButterMan
    "Congratulations to the MP for sticking up for people who want to live a life unfettered by state sanctioned health controls. I’ll pay my taxes, you leave me the hell alone. Deal?" I'll see you at the next LEGALISE HEROIN rally, right? Hello?
  • Robin
    Brian Binley = KNOB!
  • Justin M.
    @Mozr. You'll find that people need to travel for reasons connected with work, education, family, pleasure and just simple necessities like buying food and clothing. People smoke because its a pleasurable addiction, but it's a selfish one with no general, long-term benefit to anybody other than a few retailers, the cig companies and the treasury's coffers. If you're going to create an analogy with something, make sure it stands up to scrutiny.
  • And F.
    [...] South MP, Brian Binley, would like smoking reintroduced to pubs – for readers outside the UK, the previous Labour [...]
  • Beezer
    Where are all the smokers now they no longer go to pubs? Puffing away at home, while watching telly with the kids. No one saw that coming did they?
  • rappy
    pack it in and slowly kill yourself with other things that dont affect folk around you ps smokers that smoke infront of children are no more than child abusers in my eyes scum
  • rappy
    woud love a smoking ban in the street that would work
  • Klingelton
    @rappy There has to be a line somewhere. a person stood in the open air smoking his lungs to a painful and horrible death is fine. being sat next to someone while the chug a pint they can't taste and smoke their 23rd woodbine isn't giving you a choice. and I agree, people smoking in front of children should be shot. Those who smoke while pregnant are worse than a fritzel-Myra Hindle- Ian Brady spit roast tape.
  • The B.
    "being sat next to someone while the chug a pint they can’t taste and smoke their 23rd woodbine isn’t giving you a choice." You could always fuck off and sit somewhere else.
  • Justin M.
    Or the smoker could go outside, smoke, and then return to drink alongside me. Which is the fair solution and what they do now.
  • Zleet
    Don't know what the smokers are whining about. Every smoker I know decides they desperately need a ciggie every time it's their round so have to go outside and miraculously reappear when someone else gets them in.
  • PJH
    Paul said: "Get back to me with something that proves all the pub closures are due to the smoking ban, and not in anyway related to the recession, taxation or competition. That’s the point of the article. " So, you want two cohorts of data, where the only difference between them is one abolished smoking, and the other didn't? While not absolute proof of what you ask (since, clearly it cannot be proven that kicking smokers outside causes closures of pubs, much like proving 2nd/3rd/4th hand smoke causes cancer/heart disease/self righteous non-smokers to go red in the face with rage even at the thought of it beyond statistical error).... Okies - here you go: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2009/2009-027.pdf Or if you can't be bothered reading, there's a pretty graph at: http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2010/07/inconvenient-truth.htm Summary: 4 US states had positive growth 2005-2007 in their Casino Revenue. In 2008 one of those states introduced a smoking ban, the others didn't. In 2008 only 3 of those states produced positive growth of between 3-6%. One had a decline of over 20%. There would appear to be some 'minor' correlation between Casino Revenues and stopping customers from smoking in the Casinos.
  • Laurz
    PJH a pub isn't a casino, nor was this statistical analysis done during a recession. Smoker in pub decides he wants to smoke so takes his pint outside for 5 minutes. Smoker in casino decides he wants to smoke but cant take the casino outside with him. Totally different situations and also the fact that the gambler could go to a different state to gamble where smoking was allowed will also skew the data. It's like if smoking was banned in Barnsley but not in Rotherham of course all the smokers would go drinking in rotherham which would result in them showing an increase in trade while Barnsley showed a decrease. Ban smoking in both towns and you're far more likely to see them even themselves out.
  • Olly
    Worth reading Mark Easton's blog dispelling the oft-held opinion that pubs are dying. The pubs that are dying are those that don't do food (or do very limited food). The pubs that are surviving are those that do food: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/07/pubs_arent_dying_they_are_evol.html
  • PJH
    "PJH a pub isn’t a casino, nor was this statistical analysis done during a recession" You miss the point completely. "It’s like if smoking was banned in Barnsley but not in Rotherham of course all the smokers would go drinking in rotherham which would result in them showing an increase in trade while Barnsley showed a decrease." Except there. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, this is the closest you're going to get to what Paul asked for. Two cohorts identical in every way except the presence/lack of a smoking ban. Bringing the recession up is muddying things for the sake of muddying them. All it could possibly do is drag all the figures down at the same time, e.g. you'd have 3 at -3% and the other at -30% - it would affect both cohorts equally. "Totally different situations and also the fact that the gambler could go to a different state to gamble where smoking was allowed will also skew the data." So - now what we need to do is perform a similar experiment but with pubs. Lets have some non-smoking pubs, and some smoking pubs, and see what happens.... Oh - we already have - before the ban came in. "It’s like if smoking was banned in Barnsley but not in Rotherham of course all the smokers would go drinking in rotherham which would result in them showing an increase in trade while Barnsley showed a decrease." Um - so if that were actually true, wouldn't that be a positive assertion that when Paul states "Get back to me with something that proves all the pub closures are due to the smoking ban, and not in anyway related to the recession, taxation or competition. That’s the point of the article. " you're indicating he's actually right? Assuming that the decrease was severe enough to cause the Barnsley pubs to shut down that is (shame really - they had a few good ones last time I was there.)
  • Laurz
    By the way this 'man' is a bigot who is against gays having equal rights, he also immorally (possibly illegally?) claimed £57,000 to rent a property from his own company despite the rules saying he couldnt. He knew of this and yet appealed and appealed for 2 and a half years after which he was told a certain no once more. He hasn't paid back the money....
  • SD
    I for one believe the smoking ban is one of the best policies the government ever introduced, and I will certainly be going to the pub a lot less if the decide to reintroduce it. As an ex smoker SINCE the smoking ban made it easier to give up, what is wrong with going outside for a smoke?
  • Tony
    this man is a headline grabbing cunt...plain and simple - why the hell we vote for these useless fuckers, I will never know.
  • BajaK
    Until it is open and public, and in courts and legislatures, about just what this "second hand smoke" IS, the ban supporters will continue to win, and the smoker supporters will lose. As long as the prohibitionists get away with the lie of being "for health", and smokers allow themselves to be painted as "anti health", the situation can only deteriorate. Turn the tables, legitimately. -- Anti smoke groups need to be OUTED as part and parcel of, or otherwise linked to, some of the most deadly health-damaging industries on the earth, such as chlorine, pesticides, and radiation. -- Pro smoker groups need to out them because of the Well Documented harms those industries have caused. Who would trust a chlorine or pesticide or dioxin-drenched industry in any health discussion? The ban crusaders NEED to be exposed as actual or unwitting agents of the cigarette industry, specifically the parts that put pesticide residues, chlorine, cancer-causing radiation, and host of untested and often toxic and carcinogenic Non-Tobacco adulterants into cigarettes. That they can get away with painting themselves as concerned about health, or concerned about workers and kids, is an outrage. That side has done more to harm human (and wildlife) health, and workers and kids than can be imagined. Smokers, on the other hand, need to realize that they are being scapegoated for the effects of not-tobacco smoke but of all of those industrial cigarette additives and contaminants. In a way, both sides seem to be somewhat (or a lot) fraudulent. Both sides are wrong, or lie, about it being "tobacco smoke" when, of course, it is at best adulterated tobacco smoke, or not even smoke from tobacco at all (in the case of cigarettes made with "tobacco substitute material"). If someone MERELY asked the officials (preferably under oath), "how do you know it's tobacco smoke or just tobacco smoke?", that could be the turning point. The pro smoker side claims to be on the side of smokers...yet unkindly fails routinely to advise smokers about the deadly and dangerous non-tobacco parts of most cigarettes. The pro-smoker side never offers advice about how to sue cigarette makers AND complicit govt officials for the pesticides, chlorine and dioxins, the radioactive fertilizers, the added burn accelerants, and for Guinea Pigging so many millions with those hosts of untested additives. Has anyone ever provided Informed Consent to be experimented upon with the chlorine, rads, pesticides etc, and the combination effects? Everyone is told it's just tobacco...that being easily the Biggest Corporate-Government lie of the last 100 years....since the start of the chlorine and pesticide era. Anti smokers' "concern for kids" is a grotesque lie in that they never utter a PEEP about protecting highly vulnerable kids, or mothers or fetuses, from the dioxin-creating chlorine in most cigarettes, and in so many other products and processes. This is all about not protecting people, but about protecting chlorine industries in general (including cigarette makers, plus pharms and pesticides and plastics, etc.) from astronomical liabilities and penalties and PR disasters. That is money that is DUE to deceived, secretly-poisoned and experimented upon smokers. To ONLY fight for rights to smoke in a pub is to be very very distracted from the big issues. No---it has NOTHING to do with "nannyism". It's about money.
  • BajaK
    Speaking of food....Just one reason tobacco has been used for about ten thousand years (in the Americas, and then elsewhere) is that it is an Appetite Suppressant. Other natural plants are and have been used for the same thing in other cultures. Don't forget that pharmaceuticals do NOT want anyone using natural un-patented plants for anything...preferring to sell us their barely-tested patented concoctions. That's one prime reason for the War on Drugs....especially the natural ones...marijuana, coca, tobacco, etc...and even alcohol. If it's natural, you see, it's "pagan" and "evil"....as the mainstream establishment will tell you. So, it may benefit food operations to ban smoking to encourage more eating. But now we have a NEW Big Cause (that also blames victims, not corporations, for problems), the Obesity Issue. Have any studies tied the big smoke ban crusade to increased obesity? Depending on the results, it could be that the smoke bans INCREASED heart attack rates from obesity.
  • John P.
    BajaK Smoke your life away if you want, nobody (and I mean nobody) gives a flying fuck. Just don't push your foul smelling choices onto those of us that choose not to want it.
  • chris h.
    Am I going mad - Did I really read a comment saying that someone has not seen a single smoker stop using the pub since the ban. My wife and I used to soend £400 pcm in our local and now we never go so our spend is £0. e have no social life can no longer use airports cafes pubs train hotels atc etc. Ou rlife has been trashed and some fool imagines there has been no change to smokers lives since the ban. I do not wish to spoil non- smokers lives and advocate sepaerate rooms for smokers. We contribute more money to the NHS that it costs them to fail in curing our problems. Perfume , petrol fumes, diesel fumes also kill people (BIG Time). Fat people kill themselves and cost us money . People who never exercise kill themselves and cost us money. We are all human and all have our failings but can't we suffer each otrhers weaknesses.
  • Korey P.
    Hey i just thought I should leave a comment as i really admireyour website its so interesting, keep it up!
  • susan
    how come pubs let smoking in germany and holland ???? think it needs a review
  • susan
    also i think for years nobody cared about the non smokers and now it on the other side pubs with food should be non smoking but the others should be smoking at least then they might be able to make a living cos it's only the pubs with food that is doing that now

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment