There is of course a selection bias in your sample. The people sitting in the pub are those who smoke, or who don’t mind people who do. But to reach the conclusion that this would “force a large number of businesses to close” you need to do a poll of the large majority of people not sitting in the pub who could have been.

I don’t go to the pub mainly because I don’t like cigarette smoke. I guess I am not the only person like this. Whether there are enough people like me to make up for the smokers who would stop going, I don’t know.

Where I think you are on stronger ground is your point about allowing the market to decide. I rather agree with that.

One option I haven’t seen considered: I wonder if there is a case for licensing authorities being required to manage the granting of licenses so that some premises in the area are non-smoking and some allow smoking, so that customers have a choice.

At the last gig I did, the number of smokers far outnumbered the non-addicts.

A straw poll in the pub (around 35 people, 30 smokers)last night revealed that if the pub banned smoking, 75% of smokers said they would not come out, even if it meant spoiling the darts & pool teams, etc. Non smokers who were asked said that if the smoking partner didn’t go out, neither would they.

The nanny state looks likely to force a large number of businesses to close, with the inevitable fall-out spreading to artistes and bands who will no longer have venues to play.

It should be a matter of choice for the owners and management of pubs and clubs. After all, if the “demand” for non smoking pubs was so high, why are there not more around already? There certainly isn’t one anywhere in Blackpool, which has the highest number of licensed premises outside central London.

I am not sure that the improvement in the quality of life of the majority does allow us to ignore the rights of a minority, no.

So when you say “[Don't] these practical benefits overide any possible theoretical objection?”, I think that question would be answered differently if you had expressed it as “Does a modest improvement in the convenience of the many override the rights of the few?”.

As a matter of interest, did cinemas eventually ban smoking because they were required by law to do so, or because of pressure from a combination of customer demand and safety requirements? I guess the latter, though I don’t know.

I was interested to hear from Phil and Tim that there increasingly are establishments that are smoke free, or smoke free in part. I would like to see market pressures, rather than laws, force the smokers out on to the streets.

Owen

The price of ‘inconvenience’ for smokers seems small compared to the huge benefits for all in health and quality of life of a total smoking ban. Doesn’t these practical benefits overide any possible theoretical objection? As Owen’s experience in California bears out, the MNC driven opposition to a ban soon fades when the practical benefits become apparent. I notice none of you here is arguing for a return to smoking on public transport or in cinemas.

So what worries me most about the proposed smoking ban – and almost equally draconian half-measures such as the creation of airtight(!) smoking rooms – is that this nannyish attack on the pleasures of the working class* will take place /precisely when it’s no longer necessary/.

*Pardon my Johnreidism, but this does seem like the most class- correlated proposal I’ve seen in a very long time – and not in a good way, either.

Which leaves a lot of places which fall somewhere in between. I am glad that smoking is not permitted in trains or on the Underground, even though I could in principle choose some other form of transport.

If I choose to sit in Caffe Nero, however, I really am exercising a free choice to go to a place that I know people will smoke. If I don’t like that, I can go to Starbucks instead. I can’t see a case for requiring Caffe Nero to ban smoking, since everyone there has made an informed decision to be among smokers. (I am assuming that the staff in coffee shops could find alternative work elsewhere at roughly the same salary.)

The imponderable problem is pubs, clubs and restaurants. If there was a choice – a reasonable selection of venues that you could go to that did not allow smoking – then anyone going to a smoke-filled pub would be exercising a choice. But for some reason such establishments do not exist. Is that because nobody wants them (in which case they should not be forced up on us)? Or is it for some other reason which should be corrected with legislation?

I repeat the point in my earlier post. I really like the fact that pubs, restaurants and coffee shops in California do not allow smoking. But I am uncomfortable about banning it.

I’m not a smoker, I appreciate the damage smoking can do and dislike having to wash everything I’m wearing just because I was out for a few hours. Still, it’s hard to understand those who act as if smoke-free pubs and clubs are some sort of human right.

If it wasn’t for Big Tobacco (including BAT, the company run by Ken Clarke) then smoking would have been banned on public health grounds years ago. The upcoming smoking ban in Scotland (due to begin in March 2006) is a direct result of pressure from doctors, trade unions and, crucially, public opinion.

The Irish model[PDF file only] has shown a sharp reduction in exposure to CO by bar workers, and overwhelming public support. Bar owners cite declining sales, but this is a continuation of a longer-term trend with no change in the rate of decline since the smoking ban.

Bring it on!

It’s simple – pubs and clubs are much more social places than coffee houses, and cool people smoke. So, pubs and clubs that ban smoking attract a duller clientele and have difficulty booking decent entertainment. I’ve no idea why it doesn’t work in restaurants, though.