Today's most viewed
Landlords' smoking ban woes
A YEAR after the smoking ban was introduced, pub landlords in north and west Wiltshire have described the "detrimental and costly" effect on their businesses.
The national ban on smoking in public places came into effect on July 1, 2007, and businesses were obliged to put up signs telling people they could no longer smoke on their premises.
Lionel Hadland, who has run The New Inn, in New Road, Chippenham, for the past 18 years, said he had not seen a profit for months.
"I am going to have to approach the brewery and see if I can get a reduction in rent as otherwise I am going to have to move on," he said.
"The smoking ban has been terrible. People have stopped coming in as I have nowhere for them to go outside and smoke.
"I'm sure people have started drinking at home now instead."
Mr Hadland who runs the pub with his partner Jane, said they had let a member of staff go because they couldn't afford to pay her anymore.
He said: "Because the building is Grade II listed I can't make any changes to it either. The smoking ban has been a disaster for me - really terrible."
Alan Packman, landlord of the Prince of Wales in Dilton Marsh, said he and his wife Lynne had to invest their own money into the pub to make sure people kept coming in after the ban.
He said: "I think it has generally been a very hard year and we have put a lot of extra effort in to make sure our customers keep coming back.
"They have been very supportive, but we have invested a lot of money making sure they are kept happy."
Mr Packman said he and his wife completely gutted the bar area of the pub to coincide with the introduction of the ban.
He said they felt it was a necessary move to attract trade.
"One thing I will say is that pubs were told they could expect a whole load of new customers to come in when the ban started," he said.
"This is something that we havent noticed happen at all.
"I suppose things will ease eventually but we are still very conscious of keeping our customers happy to maintain our business."
The Wiltshire Times reported in May how five pubs in Bradford on Avon were being sold off due to a reported fall in trade, some of which was attributed to the smoking ban.
Peter Everleigh, landlord of The Riverside Inn, said he was selling up because the smoking ban had deterred people from going into pubs.
But Les Clayton, owner of the Plough Inn, in Bradford Leigh had a slightly more positive attitude this week, saying he believed the ban was something people had to accept now.
He said: "We weren't here when the ban kicked in, we have only been here nine months, but we have two smoking areas and they are well used.
"I think the moans and groans are getting fewer and far between now though."
A spokesman for Wiltshire Primary Care Trust said 3,908 people in the county had set a date to stop smoking in the last year and 2,008 smokers quit after four weeks of help from local clinics.
Fiona Andrews, south west regional tobacco policy manager, said: "Though the main reason for introducing smokefree law was to protect workers and the general public from the harmful effects of second hand smoke, we now know that, since it was introduced last year, many more smokers have found it has also created a more supportive environment for them to quit smoking."
8:00am Friday 4th July 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Andy on 9:46am Fri 4 Jul 08
Maybe the smoking ban has made all the landlords blind. I still see plenty of people in the pubs.
Maybe the smoking ban has made all the landlords blind. I still see plenty of people in the pubs.
Posted by: ronnie, deepest wiltshire on 9:52am Fri 4 Jul 08
I had a friend who never smoked but was a Barman for 15years and he died of lung cancer due to working in a smokie place. he was only in his early 30, I do feel sorry for landlord/ladies of pub's that are in listed building because it difficult for them to get permission to put up smoking shelters. So they are losng business
I had a friend who never smoked but was a Barman for 15years and he died of lung cancer due to working in a smokie place. he was only in his early 30, I do feel sorry for landlord/ladies of pub's that are in listed building because it difficult for them to get permission to put up smoking shelters. So they are losng business
Posted by: Public Spirit, Wiltshire on 11:12am Fri 4 Jul 08
[quote][bold]ronnie[/bold] wrote:
I had a friend who never smoked but was a Barman for 15years and he died of lung cancer due to working in a smokie place. he was only in his early 30, I do feel sorry for landlord/ladies of pub's that are in listed building because it difficult for them to get permission to put up smoking shelters. So they are losng business[/quote] I know people who smoked all their lives and lived until they were in their eighties and ninelties without contracting lung cancer.
Just more of the nanny state controlling people's lives..any excuse nowadays. Isn't it a pity we cannot all be perfect weight, perfect attitude, perfect diet, perfect way of live.
Then the squalid bet wetting inquisitors talk about EQUALITY & DIVERSITY..on their own terms of course!!!
ronnie wrote:
I had a friend who never smoked but was a Barman for 15years and he died of lung cancer due to working in a smokie place. he was only in his early 30, I do feel sorry for landlord/ladies of pub's that are in listed building because it difficult for them to get permission to put up smoking shelters. So they are losng business
I know people who smoked all their lives and lived until they were in their eighties and ninelties without contracting lung cancer.
Just more of the nanny state controlling people's lives..any excuse nowadays. Isn't it a pity we cannot all be perfect weight, perfect attitude, perfect diet, perfect way of live.
Then the squalid bet wetting inquisitors talk about EQUALITY & DIVERSITY..on their own terms of course!!!
Posted by: walter, wilshur on 2:00pm Fri 4 Jul 08
PS, there is a difference between the right to smoke and the right to poison others with their smoke. I like a pint down to "Jolly Farmer", but I don't tip it over other people's heads.
PS, there is a difference between the right to smoke and the right to poison others with their smoke. I like a pint down to "Jolly Farmer", but I don't tip it over other people's heads.
Posted by: steve, Wiltshire on 2:05pm Fri 4 Jul 08
Yet another less than public spirited piece from Public Spirit.
I suppose you would like to see a totally unregulated state where free enterprise flourishes unhindered by state rules and regulation.
There are such places , such as Taiwan, but they are miserable places for many poorer citizens and even the richer ones face problems when they travel on the highways becasue there are so few rules concerning vehicles and drivers .
Only yesterday in a city south of Taipai a colleague's mother-in-law, along with eight others, was badly injureed when a model jet fighter aircraft crashed into her apartment and exploded. We have rules (nanny state) stopping this sort of thing and quite rightly so.
When it comes to the smoking ban the idea was to save lives and this it will do and we should all applaud.
People can still smoke it is just that their killer smoke will no longer harm others.
I would agree with public spirit if the gvt decided to ban smoking completely, as that would be nanny state giong too far.
In everything the issues need to be weighed and balanced and I thing the MPs got this about right.
Though they could take it a little further by banning packet designs and point of sale display.
Yet another less than public spirited piece from Public Spirit.
I suppose you would like to see a totally unregulated state where free enterprise flourishes unhindered by state rules and regulation.
There are such places , such as Taiwan, but they are miserable places for many poorer citizens and even the richer ones face problems when they travel on the highways becasue there are so few rules concerning vehicles and drivers .
Only yesterday in a city south of Taipai a colleague's mother-in-law, along with eight others, was badly injureed when a model jet fighter aircraft crashed into her apartment and exploded. We have rules (nanny state) stopping this sort of thing and quite rightly so.
When it comes to the smoking ban the idea was to save lives and this it will do and we should all applaud.
People can still smoke it is just that their killer smoke will no longer harm others.
I would agree with public spirit if the gvt decided to ban smoking completely, as that would be nanny state giong too far.
In everything the issues need to be weighed and balanced and I thing the MPs got this about right.
Though they could take it a little further by banning packet designs and point of sale display.
Posted by: mandy vincent on 2:36pm Fri 4 Jul 08
Sorry Mr Clayton, there will be many who will not accept brainwashing, unscientific facts, and propaganda that pushed through thi vindictive, UNWANTED by the MAJORITY blanket ban. If the majority did want it, then all the pubs, restaurants coffee shops, would be thriving, wouldn't they.
Many people are forced to breathe in the smoke haters carcinogenic perfumes and after-shave though. I find that obnoxious with my food and drink.
9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in
exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot
produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the
raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove
health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act".
http://www.ourlittle
place.com/chemicals.
html
3. BENZYL ACETATE (in: perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants)
Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects." "Do not flush to sewer."
So ventilation would have made the air cleaner for everyone.
http://cleanairquali
ty.blogspot.com/
Air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
Smoke-haters were never banned from investing their OWN money into their own smoke-free venues were they. This is more about control.
I have to ask myself, are these the words of sane men? or dictators? video link inside - Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF
http://www.smokerscl
ubinc.com/Page/6100.
html Weyco and Banzhaf
Intolerance is NOT healthy for our children or Countries.
freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike please join our forums and consider becoming a member.
Sorry Mr Clayton, there will be many who will not accept brainwashing, unscientific facts, and propaganda that pushed through thi vindictive, UNWANTED by the MAJORITY blanket ban. If the majority did want it, then all the pubs, restaurants coffee shops, would be thriving, wouldn't they.
Many people are forced to breathe in the smoke haters carcinogenic perfumes and after-shave though. I find that obnoxious with my food and drink.
9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in
exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot
produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the
raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove
health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act".
http://www.ourlittle
place.com/chemicals.
html
3. BENZYL ACETATE (in: perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants)
Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects." "Do not flush to sewer."
So ventilation would have made the air cleaner for everyone.
http://cleanairquali
ty.blogspot.com/
Air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
Smoke-haters were never banned from investing their OWN money into their own smoke-free venues were they. This is more about control.
I have to ask myself, are these the words of sane men? or dictators? video link inside - Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF
http://www.smokerscl
ubinc.com/Page/6100.
html Weyco and Banzhaf
Intolerance is NOT healthy for our children or Countries.
freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike please join our forums and consider becoming a member.
Posted by: trowbo, Trowbridge on 2:53pm Fri 4 Jul 08
If people are truly worried about their health, why do they go to the pub and poison themselves with alcohol and fatty bar snacks like pork scrtchings?
If people want to lead a healthy alternative and not contaminate themselves with smoke, alcohol or any over nasty substance, why not go to a nice healthy gym and have a fruit smoothy, or a glass of mineral water.
The government will be banning alcoholic beverages from pubs next on health grounds. Indoors for water drinkers, outside for alcohol and a small pen for smokers!
Pubs are unhealthy places, for people that want to be unhealthy and enjoy themselves. Please leave us alone to shorten out merry lives through the consumption of beer, pork scratchings and smoking fags! Join a gym if you want to live for ever...
If people are truly worried about their health, why do they go to the pub and poison themselves with alcohol and fatty bar snacks like pork scrtchings?
If people want to lead a healthy alternative and not contaminate themselves with smoke, alcohol or any over nasty substance, why not go to a nice healthy gym and have a fruit smoothy, or a glass of mineral water.
The government will be banning alcoholic beverages from pubs next on health grounds. Indoors for water drinkers, outside for alcohol and a small pen for smokers!
Pubs are unhealthy places, for people that want to be unhealthy and enjoy themselves. Please leave us alone to shorten out merry lives through the consumption of beer, pork scratchings and smoking fags! Join a gym if you want to live for ever...
Posted by: Public Spirit, Wiltshire on 9:24am Sat 5 Jul 08
[quote][bold]steve[/bold] wrote:
Yet another less than public spirited piece from Public Spirit. I suppose you would like to see a totally unregulated state where free enterprise flourishes unhindered by state rules and regulation. There are such places , such as Taiwan, but they are miserable places for many poorer citizens and even the richer ones face problems when they travel on the highways becasue there are so few rules concerning vehicles and drivers . Only yesterday in a city south of Taipai a colleague's mother-in-law, along with eight others, was badly injureed when a model jet fighter aircraft crashed into her apartment and exploded. We have rules (nanny state) stopping this sort of thing and quite rightly so. When it comes to the smoking ban the idea was to save lives and this it will do and we should all applaud. People can still smoke it is just that their killer smoke will no longer harm others. I would agree with public spirit if the gvt decided to ban smoking completely, as that would be nanny state giong too far. In everything the issues need to be weighed and balanced and I thing the MPs got this about right. Though they could take it a little further by banning packet designs and point of sale display. [/quote] No, Steve, I would not like the UK to become a totally unregulated state.
We were nothing like Taiwan before the smoking ban. Trivial laws and rules just leave less resources to deal with major laws and regulatory issues.
Public spirit is defending the rights of people. For every genuine non-smoker who is concerned over health, there are three who just don't like the smell.
That is nanny state, pandering to one nose at the expense of another's liberty.
There should be much more state regulation in areas like handing down harsher sentences for serious criminals and consumer protection but less to appease the wishy washy bed-wetters.
This nanny state victimises motorists and smokers but is impotent to deal with real crime because of the same liberal minded "be nice to real thugs and criminals" brigade. The same bed-wetters, I'll bet! Easy life for the nanny state!!!
steve wrote:
Yet another less than public spirited piece from Public Spirit. I suppose you would like to see a totally unregulated state where free enterprise flourishes unhindered by state rules and regulation. There are such places , such as Taiwan, but they are miserable places for many poorer citizens and even the richer ones face problems when they travel on the highways becasue there are so few rules concerning vehicles and drivers . Only yesterday in a city south of Taipai a colleague's mother-in-law, along with eight others, was badly injureed when a model jet fighter aircraft crashed into her apartment and exploded. We have rules (nanny state) stopping this sort of thing and quite rightly so. When it comes to the smoking ban the idea was to save lives and this it will do and we should all applaud. People can still smoke it is just that their killer smoke will no longer harm others. I would agree with public spirit if the gvt decided to ban smoking completely, as that would be nanny state giong too far. In everything the issues need to be weighed and balanced and I thing the MPs got this about right. Though they could take it a little further by banning packet designs and point of sale display.
No, Steve, I would not like the UK to become a totally unregulated state.
We were nothing like Taiwan before the smoking ban. Trivial laws and rules just leave less resources to deal with major laws and regulatory issues.
Public spirit is defending the rights of people. For every genuine non-smoker who is concerned over health, there are three who just don't like the smell.
That is nanny state, pandering to one nose at the expense of another's liberty.
There should be much more state regulation in areas like handing down harsher sentences for serious criminals and consumer protection but less to appease the wishy washy bed-wetters.
This nanny state victimises motorists and smokers but is impotent to deal with real crime because of the same liberal minded "be nice to real thugs and criminals" brigade. The same bed-wetters, I'll bet! Easy life for the nanny state!!!
Posted by: Public Spirit, Wiltshire on 9:33am Sat 5 Jul 08
[quote][bold]walter[/bold] wrote:
PS, there is a difference between the right to smoke and the right to poison others with their smoke. I like a pint down to "Jolly Farmer", but I don't tip it over other people's heads. [/quote] I agree, Walter but do remember that alcohol also has a nasty smell to some and could well be the next ban on the Nanny list.
When you look at the assaults, domestic violence, abusive behaviour and criminal damage caused by those who drink too much, it puts smokers in the shade.
I am not at all sure that so called secondary smoking does poison anyone but many people have been killed and maimed by drunkards.
Like smokers, most drinkers are considerate anyway but how far does the nanny state go before we are back to setting a walking pace speed limit for vehicles, prohibition of alcohol and limited breathing to reduce emissions??
Where will it end, Walter??
walter wrote:
PS, there is a difference between the right to smoke and the right to poison others with their smoke. I like a pint down to "Jolly Farmer", but I don't tip it over other people's heads.
I agree, Walter but do remember that alcohol also has a nasty smell to some and could well be the next ban on the Nanny list.
When you look at the assaults, domestic violence, abusive behaviour and criminal damage caused by those who drink too much, it puts smokers in the shade.
I am not at all sure that so called secondary smoking does poison anyone but many people have been killed and maimed by drunkards.
Like smokers, most drinkers are considerate anyway but how far does the nanny state go before we are back to setting a walking pace speed limit for vehicles, prohibition of alcohol and limited breathing to reduce emissions??
Where will it end, Walter??
Posted by: Necker, Trowbridge on 11:55am Sat 5 Jul 08
Why dont you get heart cancer?
Thats always thrown me.
Think about it.
Mouth, throat, lung, pancreas, bowel, liver.... etc etc
It's the poisons we consume or inhale, all around us.
It's not just smoking you do-goody fools it's your/our lifestyle and environments.
Its the things the government do not tell you about, stuff in your water last week leaked in from somewhere, a bad batch food colouring from china in 50% of all red foodstuffs on supermarket shelves, a leak from some poison processing plant once evry now and then(eg lafarge)
blah....
Its all around us, throw your dice take your chance.
Why dont you get heart cancer?
Thats always thrown me.
Think about it.
Mouth, throat, lung, pancreas, bowel, liver.... etc etc
It's the poisons we consume or inhale, all around us.
It's not just smoking you do-goody fools it's your/our lifestyle and environments.
Its the things the government do not tell you about, stuff in your water last week leaked in from somewhere, a bad batch food colouring from china in 50% of all red foodstuffs on supermarket shelves, a leak from some poison processing plant once evry now and then(eg lafarge)
blah....
Its all around us, throw your dice take your chance.
Posted by: trowbridge, Trowbridge on 9:45pm Sat 5 Jul 08
A YEAR after the smoking ban was repealed, humans in north and west Wiltshire have described the "detrimental and costly" effect on their lungs and health.
A YEAR after the smoking ban was repealed, humans in north and west Wiltshire have described the "detrimental and costly" effect on their lungs and health.
Posted by: lawtonk, milton keynes on 12:02am Sun 6 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Public Spirit[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]walter[/bold] wrote: PS, there is a difference between the right to smoke and the right to poison others with their smoke. I like a pint down to "Jolly Farmer", but I don't tip it over other people's heads. [/quote] I agree, Walter but do remember that alcohol also has a nasty smell to some and could well be the next ban on the Nanny list. When you look at the assaults, domestic violence, abusive behaviour and criminal damage caused by those who drink too much, it puts smokers in the shade. I am not at all sure that so called secondary smoking does poison anyone but many people have been killed and maimed by drunkards. Like smokers, most drinkers are considerate anyway but how far does the nanny state go before we are back to setting a walking pace speed limit for vehicles, prohibition of alcohol and limited breathing to reduce emissions?? Where will it end, Walter??[/quote] I think we are all in agreement with you about alcohol and violence and drink driving!
But all of these were banned years ago! We can’t ban them again!
For someone who does not smoke, it is unacceptable for them to be expected to spend an evening in a room full of smoke! We are not the junkies so why should we suffer!
Public Spirit wrote:
walter wrote: PS, there is a difference between the right to smoke and the right to poison others with their smoke. I like a pint down to "Jolly Farmer", but I don't tip it over other people's heads.
I agree, Walter but do remember that alcohol also has a nasty smell to some and could well be the next ban on the Nanny list. When you look at the assaults, domestic violence, abusive behaviour and criminal damage caused by those who drink too much, it puts smokers in the shade. I am not at all sure that so called secondary smoking does poison anyone but many people have been killed and maimed by drunkards. Like smokers, most drinkers are considerate anyway but how far does the nanny state go before we are back to setting a walking pace speed limit for vehicles, prohibition of alcohol and limited breathing to reduce emissions?? Where will it end, Walter??
I think we are all in agreement with you about alcohol and violence and drink driving!
But all of these were banned years ago! We can’t ban them again!
For someone who does not smoke, it is unacceptable for them to be expected to spend an evening in a room full of smoke! We are not the junkies so why should we suffer!
Posted by: chris whittaker, U.K on 1:02am Sun 6 Jul 08
It,s funny ,I don,t remember anyone before the Smoking ban came in moan about a bit of smoke in a pub we wre there NOT to worry about anything just have a good time !sadly a lot of the smokers who made it a good time and good atmosphere are now staying at home with their sixpacks !
It,s funny ,I don,t remember anyone before the Smoking ban came in moan about a bit of smoke in a pub we wre there NOT to worry about anything just have a good time !sadly a lot of the smokers who made it a good time and good atmosphere are now staying at home with their sixpacks !
Posted by: Public Spirit, Wiltshire on 8:46am Sun 6 Jul 08
lawtonk, the objection I have is not to selective smoking bans. If a landlord/lady finds they are losing customers or staff through allowing smoking in their pubs etc then by all means they should have the right to impose a ban. My objection is to the generalised Nanny State law.
If anyone loses business or staff hrough smokers, that is for self-regulation.
What would happen would be that some places would find that a ban would discourage customers, others that it would encourage customers. This means that freedom of choice can be maintained for all. If one doesn't like smoke..go to places where it is voluntarily banned. There is no need for the bureaucrats to intervene on behalf of sensitive nanny noses!!
lawtonk, the objection I have is not to selective smoking bans. If a landlord/lady finds they are losing customers or staff through allowing smoking in their pubs etc then by all means they should have the right to impose a ban. My objection is to the generalised Nanny State law.
If anyone loses business or staff hrough smokers, that is for self-regulation.
What would happen would be that some places would find that a ban would discourage customers, others that it would encourage customers. This means that freedom of choice can be maintained for all. If one doesn't like smoke..go to places where it is voluntarily banned. There is no need for the bureaucrats to intervene on behalf of sensitive nanny noses!!
Posted by: moonrakin_wurzel, Trowbridge on 7:03pm Wed 9 Jul 08
I think this has to be repeated time and time again - the main thing that characterizes the smoking ban issue is stinking, brazen hypocrisy.
The government, by their own admission makes in excess of £10,000,000,000 annual profit from smokers after they've paid for their NHS treatment... (£1,700,000 according to T Blair before he b u gg e red of prior to the reckoning) That's over 10% of the NHS budget and smokers get less than 2% spent on them. Then they use some of the chump change to finance some of the anti smoking pressure groups ... summits stinks in this equation and it ain't the baccy.
I think this has to be repeated time and time again - the main thing that characterizes the smoking ban issue is stinking, brazen hypocrisy.
The government, by their own admission makes in excess of £10,000,000,000 annual profit from smokers after they've paid for their NHS treatment... (£1,700,000 according to T Blair before he b u gg e red of prior to the reckoning) That's over 10% of the NHS budget and smokers get less than 2% spent on them. Then they use some of the chump change to finance some of the anti smoking pressure groups ... summits stinks in this equation and it ain't the baccy.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
