Anti-Smoking Tyrants Killing Scotland's Pubs

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
A third of Scottish pubs has reported laying off staff due to the smoking ban, a survey of landlords claims.
However, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, which polled 530 pubs, could not give exact job loss numbers.

With the first anniversary of the ban approaching, the survey suggested that drink sales remained 11% below pre-ban levels and food sales were down 3%.

Many licensees blamed a drop in how often people go to the pub, with 56% reporting fewer visits by regulars.

About one-third of pub bosses also complained of fewer visits from new customers.

The SLTA sent surveys to all its 1,500 members but only about one-third responded.

Only 3% of those licensed premises reported taking on extra employees since the ban was introduced on 26 March last year, the survey revealed.

Paul Waterson, SLTA chief executive, said the industry had suffered "collateral damage" in a war between the Scottish Executive and the tobacco industry.

"We were never properly and fairly consulted on the ban and our warnings were ignored - now we have to live with the consequences of losing loyal workers and pubs being under threat," he said.

"What really concerned us is that national and local government have been totally unhelpful.

"We were given the regulations on how to set up smoking facilities absurdly late, and now four in five of our members find their local authorities no help at all as they try to create covered outside areas to enable their businesses to survive."

The poll found that 42% of landlords had invested more in outdoor facilities, but 81% said their local council had been unhelpful or a hindrance.

"This whole sorry episode was completely avoidable but the executive were so keen to jump on the Irish bandwagon that they didn't want to listen to any advice," Mr Waterson said.

He said the executive's "deafening silence" over tobacco sales and the number of people quitting smoking indicated that the ban had hit the industry rather than the intended target.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6478369.stm

Pubs are luxury items, not essentials, and as such are best dealt with by the markets.

Rather than dictate from above, why not let the market decide, if there is a market for non-smoking pubs, then they will open.
 
No smoking in Businesses of all types is pretty much the norm over here.
I have not been into a bar (pub) here since they passed the no smoking law in my area. The gummit will miss those taxes....
 
It is simply unneccesary and hypocritical.

If there is a market for smoke-free pubs, let the market provide them. Pubs aren't an essential item.

Those who campaign to ban it are usually hypocrits who jump into their cars, onto planes on holiday etc and kick out far more carcinogens than I will with my cigarette.

It really grips my shit, US...lol
 
Hey we have a town in Cali that has banned smoking in town. You can't smoke on the street, in your car or even IN YOUR APARTMENT! You can smoke in your own home, if you own it.
 
But it is for our own good , right ?

Fraken corporate fascists!

Can't smoke in our homes, but industrial emission controls should be voluntary by corporations...
 
It's a tough call. I can see room for some sort of reasonable comprimise.

But, in general, in my view "personal freedom" ends where it infringes on the rights and safety of others. Those waitresses have to work 8-hour shifts in clouds of carcinogenic smoke. One function the government legitimately has, to to ensure adequate worker safety.

Some conservatives will argue "we'll why don't those gals just get a job somewhere else?". I've never entirely bought that argument. In some economically challenged communites, the pool of available jobs is limited.

And I used to always feel bad for some of the waitresses. I always imagined some of them might be single moms, supporting kids on meager waitress wages. And to think that they were getting poisoned by carcinogenic smoke while trying to do right by their kids always bothered me. But, hey. I'm a bleeding heart.
 
This is happening all over the US as well. California and Colorado both have laws against smoking in bars...
 
Good post AOI. As long as people are made fully aware of the hazardous nature of a job I believe it is acceptable to have smoking at a business.

Many jobs have health risks. Being a nurse or doctor exposes one to disease being a stunt driver increases the risk of injury. Doing highsteel construction has a high risk, coal mining reduces one's life expectancy.

People have to be made fully aware of the risks but once they are presented the employee should be free to choose.

Its no consolation to try to protect servers from smoke if they lose their jobs anyway because they lose patrons.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Good post AOI. As long as people are made fully aware of the hazardous nature of a job I believe it is acceptable to have smoking at a business.

Many jobs have health risks. Being a nurse or doctor exposes one to disease being a stunt driver increases the risk of injury. Doing highsteel construction has a high risk, coal mining reduces one's life expectancy.

People have to be made fully aware of the risks but once they are presented the employee should be free to choose.

Its no consolation to try to protect servers from smoke if they lose their jobs anyway because they lose patrons.
Click to expand...


You're equating preventable risks, with non-preventable risks. The governments job, is not to prevent ALL risks. Its to help mitigate preventable risks. Steel and coal mines are inherently dangerous. And hard pphysical labor. Nothing can be done about that. But, there are preventable risks that can be mitigated. Like making steel workers wear hard hats, and coal miners have air filtering equipment.

Smoking is a preventable risk to workers. Around here, I've never heard of a bar closing, because no one could smoke inside. I'm not sure why its so difficult to just step on the patio outside, or out on the sidewalk to catch a puff, before heading back in to your ale.
 
Cypress said:
You're equating preventable risks, with non-preventable risks. The governments job, is not to prevent ALL risks. Its to help mitigate preventable risks. Steel and coal mines are inherently dangerous. And hard pphysical labor. Nothing can be done about that. But, there are preventable risks that can be mitigated. Like making steel workers wear hard hats, and coal miners have air filtering equipment.

Smoking is a preventable risk to workers. Around here, I've never heard of a bar closing, because no one could smoke inside. I'm not sure why its so difficult to just step on the patio outside, or out on the sidewalk to catch a puff, before heading back in to your ale.
Click to expand...
It would be easy to prevent the risk to stuntmen by making it illegal to employ them. You could also prevent risks to construction workers by minimizing the height of buildings. You could make it illegal to own an automobile and eliminate the largest risk you take in your life.

The government is picking and choosing risks that are more popular to "prevent".
 
you're doing the same thing IHG did: mixing preventable risk and non-preventable risk together.

Stuntmen is a high skill and high risk occupation. Not all risk can, or should, be eliminated. Nonetheless, the stuntman union and governments do have safety regulations to mitigate preventable risk to human and animal performers.
 
You're equating preventable risks, with non-preventable risks. The governments job, is not to prevent ALL risks. Its to help mitigate preventable risks. Steel and coal mines are inherently dangerous. And hard pphysical labor. Nothing can be done about that. But, there are preventable risks that can be mitigated. Like making steel workers wear hard hats, and coal miners have air filtering equipment.

Smoking is a preventable risk to workers. Around here, I've never heard of a bar closing, because no one could smoke inside. I'm not sure why its so difficult to just step on the patio outside, or out on the sidewalk to catch a puff, before heading back in to your ale.

Then allow for workers to be able to be sequestered from the smoke or to provide adequate ventilation. That doesn't mean it should not be allowed what so ever.

How bout this Cypress should arena workers be protected by making it illegal to play music above a certain volume at a concert? This is preventable risk right?
 
Cypress said:
you're doing the same thing IHG did: mixing preventable risk and non-preventable risk together.

Stuntmen is a high skill and high risk occupation. Not all risk can, or should, be eliminated. Nonetheless, the stuntman union and governments do have safety regulations to mitigate preventable risk to human and animal performers.
Click to expand...
I am not. I explained how the risks could be prevented by the government.

As I stated before, it is clear that the government picks and chooses the more popular risks to "prevent".
 
toby said:
just liberals trying to run your life
Click to expand...

That's why I hate them mothers. Some libs got a law passed in these parts saying I got to wear a seatbelt. Thats them always nosying around in a man's personal beeswax. So happens I did wear a seatbelt. Until they passed that law. Soon as they passed that law, I fucking refused to wear one! Fuck those libs I said everytime I got into my pickup.

Course, one day I hit a stop sign, on account of my neighbor Betsy got it into her head to go trapaising around the neighborhood wearing her underwear and claiming it was some kind of feminast statement, and I was so busy staring at her ass, I never saw the stop sign. Went flying straight out of my window and into the road and just my luck, old lady schumocker was coming along who can't see for shit, and she ran right over my ass, just as i was about to get up. Then she told me it was my fault. I still refuse to wear one. No one is going to tell me what to do, I don't care.
 
Then allow for workers to be able to be sequestered from the smoke or to provide adequate ventilation. That doesn't mean it should not be allowed what so ever.



That's what I already suggested, when I said reasonable comprimises could be made. A balance between worker safety and customer convenience.
 
Cypress said:
You're equating preventable risks, with non-preventable risks. The governments job, is not to prevent ALL risks. Its to help mitigate preventable risks. Steel and coal mines are inherently dangerous. And hard pphysical labor. Nothing can be done about that. But, there are preventable risks that can be mitigated. Like making steel workers wear hard hats, and coal miners have air filtering equipment.

Smoking is a preventable risk to workers. Around here, I've never heard of a bar closing, because no one could smoke inside. I'm not sure why its so difficult to just step on the patio outside, or out on the sidewalk to catch a puff, before heading back in to your ale.
Click to expand...

Haven't you ever heard of the invisible hand? What are you some kind of retard or something? Look, it's all about market forces, don't matter what the question is, market forces along with the hand can answer it. I don't mean to sound uppity, tell the truth, I don't understand much about it myself. What you got to do is go to someone real knowledable about these things, that's what I do. They can explain it all to you.

Click here for someone realy really knowledgable about economic forces:

http://www.realnews247.com/sean_hannity.jpg

He will explain everything, better than I can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top