THE TELEGRAPH: Why is an amendment to the ban not being taken seriously, asks Philip Johnston.
My eye was drawn yesterday to a small article by our gossip columnist, Mandrake, reporting that the iconic London nightclub Tramp is installing an area for smokers at a cost of £1.8 million.
Kevin Doyle, Tramp's owner, said the expense was "worth it" to help stem the loss of business caused by the ban on smoking in public places. He hoped the addition of a smoking area would mark a "return to the good old days" of the 1960s when the venue first opened its doors. Brian Crawford, the club's general manager, said: "To be honest, we lost a lot of our big players because of the ban."
Like many pubs and clubs, Tramp has been hit by a ban that was draconian when it should have been flexible. Around 40 are closing every week, not all, it is true, as a result of the ban (cut-price supermarket booze is probably a bigger threat), and thousands of jobs have been lost. There are 6,000 fewer pubs than in 2005. Proponents of the ban derided claims that it would seriously damage the pub trade and, indeed, believed it would attract a new clientele of non-smokers and families to enjoy a drink and food in a smoke-free atmosphere.
But what about the rights of smokers? Why was the law not framed in a way that would reflect the interests both of the majority who favoured a ban and of those who would like to carry on puffing, whatever damage it might do to their health? Initially, it was envisaged that there would be exemptions for private clubs or the provision of smoking rooms in pubs, and their continuation in workplaces that had already banned smoking in most of their office space. A simpler route would have allowed landlords to designate their pubs as either smoking or non-smoking establishments, giving people – including staff – the choice of where to drink and work.
When the ban came fully into effect in the UK on July 1, 2007, polls suggested that up to 80 per cent of all adults were more likely to visit a pub, but little of that anticipated new custom actually materialised – while regulars have vanished. One perverse outcome of the ban, which was, after all, supposed to protect vulnerable people from the effect of passive smoking, is that many adults stayed at home to smoke, thereby afflicting their children with fumes they might otherwise have avoided. Another purpose was to prevent children seeing smoking and being tempted into the habit – yet, because smokers have to stand in the street, that didn't work, either. Read on and comment >>> Philip Johnston | Tuesday, August 17, 2010
