The Caterer Blog

As a landlady I couldn't wait for the ban to come in. I am an ex-smoker and it took me a year to stop. I have been working in this industry for 20 years and in all that time I have been subjected to passive smoke, over the years so have my staff, how irresponsible we have been.
It is your right to live your life how you want if that includes smoking thats up to you, as long as it doesn't affect me, and passive smoke does affect me. After a shift on the bar we stink of cigarettes, our clothes and hair, you do think what have I been breathing in all night.
It took me a long time to give up and I resent having to breathe in your fumes, because you don't want to give up.
Mr Howitt needs to wake up and start being responsible, he has a duty of care to make sure his staff work in a clean and healthy environment.
Get with the programme Mr Howitt if you do not change, adapt and move with the times you get left behind and we all know what happens then, it is not cool or trendy to smoke anymore, we all know it kills you, slowly and painfully.

Thanks for the comments Cath. The points you raised are exactly the reason Caterer launched its "stub out smoking campaign" back in 2004.

The anti-ban campaign groups would have you believe this is a matter of human rights, but the impact on the health of hospitality workers was ignored for too long.

Cynics would suggest Howitt's crusade is merely a publicity stunt - he's certainly got plenty of column inches out of it.

Cath,

If you dislike passive smoke that much why didn't you go smoke free before the ban? That way no-one else's smoking would have "affected you". That was your free choice; unlike the 1 in 4 people in this country who now have no choice at all; not even a warm dry shelter to stand in.

And what's with this painful slow death myth? Do you presume that as a non-smoker you will have a pleasantly quick and painless death?

Well done to Hamish for standing up against this draconian ban that persecutes a quarter of the population.

Daniel. It is far more than a rights issue, it is the total arrogation of a branch of science by a special interest group. 150 statistical fairy tales still can't show passive smoke to be anywhere near as risky as coffee.

Good points steve. Why wasn't the caterers campaign a resounding success? All business owners were free to make their premises smokefree. Some did, some did not, a clear choice now removed in many private establishments.

Have more people's health and safety been put at risk as a result of the Ban? Is putting people who smoke and non-smokers ouside a good idea, with outdoor air pollution and possible drink spiking?

Ventllation/Filtration and choice was a clear way forward.

The so-called majority of pub owners would have spent their time better fighting the ban rather than
meekly giving in like sheep.
Just wait till the next law banning smokers from within 9 metres of an entrance ( European law being considered ) comes into
force. What will the pub owners do with their Shelters etc. JOIN HAMISH and FIGHT THE BAN.

Good luck to Hamish Howitt he is right. Pubs/clubs are not publically owned they are privately owned. People are invited in not forced in and no one has to work there. Pubs did not have to wait for a smoking ban to make their premises non smoking they could have done this anytime - why didnt they because 75% of customers in pubs smoke. If landlords think smokers are going to get used to this ban they are burying their head in the sand. Why would any rightminded person pay an exhorbitant price for a drink then be told to stand outside when they can go to the supermarket buy in and entertain at home. If you are waiting for anti smokers to fill the pubs you will be waiting a long time, its not going to happen

As one of the maligned, both as a smoker and as an anti-ban proponent, I would like to say that the reason that many people are fighting this ban is principally because it has been based on deceit.

The minority in the form of the highly vocal, aggressive and well funded tobacco prohibition lobby has resorted to the debasement of science as "proof" that ETS is so dangerous that 25% (a conservative figure) of the population should be denied the comfort of four walls and a roof. ETS is no more than an irritant and, as such, can be effectively handled by the installation of air technology.

The deceit continues into the Government which has, for reasons of its own, utilised the disreputable "science" to convince the public to accept its intervention into private property rights and to deny private business owners, employees and customers the responsibility to exercise choice.

Far from being irresponsible, Hamish Howitt is exercising his choice to protest at what he and many, many other law abiding citizens consider to be unacceptable legislation and he is to be commended for his courage in daring to do so in the face of this dictatorial, arrogant and overbearing regime.

I have used the term "prohibition" rather than "control" earlier because it expresses the true objective of the minority responsible for this ban which is to "denormalise" smoking until it has been made illegal. Publicans who have spent thousands on extending hospitality to smokers should be prepared to be told in the not too distant future that their efforts have been wasted when smoking is prohibited outdoors. I wonder if, at this point, they will be prepared to stand up and be counted as Hamish Howitt is now.

What? Smoking's "not cool and trendy anymore"? Then I must cease my pleasure this instant. I'd just hate to get left behind in this race to be a model citizen.

The antismoking movement display supreme arrogance and contempt; not only for "the science" which has been prostituted in their cause, not only for the gullibility of those easily duped by cooked statistics, and for the property-rights of landlords, but also a truly chilling undercurrent of hatred against those who refuse to "get with the programme". This hatred is founded on perceptions of weakness [the hopeless addict] and manifests first in the use of emotive terminology [the "stink" of smoke, never the "smell", and most certainly never "the aroma"], then in prohibition, then in the vilification and persecution of refuseniks.

It may be invoking "Moore's Law", or whatever, but there really is a precedent for all of this, and an ironic one at that. The term "passive smoking" was coined sixty-odd years ago, as a result of researchers in Nazi Germany being tasked with finding quasi-scientific justifications to support Hitler's hatred of smoking.

I think a very good point in fact - the ones saying to enforce the ban - why then did they NOT go smoke-"free" prior to the ban - as they had every RIGHT.

But in FACT - those who wanted to be smoke-"free" FAILED to exercise their RIGHT.

Accordingly now NOBODY has any rights - as is true when the RIGHTS of even a substantially large minority are lost - so then is it for the rest of us - the non-smokers like myself - who have to endure hate campaigns, lies, name-calling and propaganda of the most vile nature as well as knowing for a fact that there were better solutions - such as ventilation or freedom of choice that could have been invoked instead.

Add that to the FACT that SHS is NOT proven harmful, that ventilated smoking rooms WOULD have worked and been FAIR - there is no longer any FAIRNESS either.

And why - because those who WANTED to go smoke-"free" - FAILED.

The current smoking ban is a result of FAILURE, not victory.

And the ONLY thing close to "victory" is the fact what Hitler began 70 years ago is now completed - here in England.

Sad facts - but the truth.

And while one might not like what another smokes, one might have the courage to stand up and defend the others' rights to associate and do so - for as so goes one man's rights, there goes another's.

This thing was handled so incorrectly it is a spectacle on the world stage of the true incompetence this government has become.

Why do all these anti-smokers think that we smokers wish to "pollute" their air space? All we want is the freedom to choose to go into a pub and enjoy a ciggie with our drink. 1 in 4 adults smoke, therefore, in the name of democracy and fairness, 1 in 4 pubs should be for smokers.I wish Hamish all the luck in the world with the stand he is making on our behalf

How very true and how very sad that what Hitler set out to do, England has now accomplished. My roots are in England and I am sickened that this is so. Good luck Hamish. You are one of very few people with courage. It's not about smoking - it's about the removal of individual choices and England has outdone itself in this respect.

It is high time that The Caterer and its various associates clearly understand that its business is limited to the merchanting aspects of catering and hospitality affairs.

You most certainly have no brief in promoting personal opinion, dabbling in politics, in the medicalisation of society, or in the condemnation of licencees who have the courage to protest livelihood-threatening legislation.

I salute Hamish Howitt and the other courageous individuals who are putting themselves on the line, in defence of their industry and society at large.

Well, that certainly opened up a hornet's nest. Thanks to everyone for your comments.

Just a quick response to Simon - the Caterer blog (and any blog for that matter) is all about personal opinions, which is why we have not edited anybody's responses.

I certainly did not condemn Mr Howitt in my original post, merely opened up the debate - which was then a healthy one.

And a response to 'west' who asked why our campaign was not a resounding success. Well, I would argue that it was an unqualified success - the Government did stub out smoking.

The tone of this debate reminds me of the old adage about radio phone ins - the first side to bring in comparisons with the Nazis has clearly lost the argument

To the comment above about pubs being privately owned, it matters not. If you work from home then you are not allowed to smoke in your own house either. Or something like that. As we work from home we had some blurb about it.

I cant say I am upset about the smoking ban being a non smokers myself.

Although I do think part of the problem is smokers don't really realize how horrible smoking is for non-smokers. And you couldn't always avoid it, pub and clubs yes, but other things, train platforms were always my pain, were far more difficult.

Personally I dont mind if people put themselves into an early grave but I dont really want them taking me or my children with them. I know someone who just had most of their bowel removed due to smoking related cancer, it really it quite horrible ... and preventable.

We did put in a ban, over 2 years ago and included the whole set of our properties - inside and out, including the car parks and grounds. Apart from an initial settling down period this has been an outstanding success.
We have noted that for our competitor pubs/restaurants/hotels where there is smoking available outside at the tables, the smokers are now so thick on the ground that it is almost as unpleasant outside as it used to be inside. Food sales seem to be suffering consequently outside, but I'm told are growing inside. For us they've always been on the up from the moment of our own self imposed ban in 2005. In addition our staff have found the change much to their liking - dare I repeat the oft heard comment - "glad the smokers have gone, they were poisoning us" Doesn't really matter what the scientific reality is, does it? - when the marketing reality is this is government action that was long overdue

There are knock on consequences that seemed to have been ignored. I have a bar next to my fine wine shop, we have existed along side each other for 10 years, since the ban all the smoke from the people stood outside wafts into my shop, on a bad day you can actually see the smoke hanging as the light catches it. Added to this is the general language used by young people drinking and the downmarket appearance having groups of people stood outside my shop creates.

So yes the bar is now smoke free but perversely my shop is now not.

this was voted in and thats that, we are a democracy and even if it doesnt suit 1 in 4 the majority has spoken and people like him should be charged for breaking the law. If not what is the point of having this process. Frankly had people known orginally the dangerous effects of smoking I'm sure it would have been a banned substance like other drugs or are these people going to say they should all be legalised because its our right to choose!! Its pretty ignorant to think that anything that cantains 3000 + chemicals is good for you or anyone else!!

As a smoker who wishes to quit I am in favour of the ban. Workers have every right to a smoke free environment and the one in four smokers need every bit of help they can get to quit the addiction. Now that smokers are made to look daft standing outside in the rain, youngsters may also have a better chance of avoiding the habit in the first place.

People who bang on about freedom and links to Nazism have a very poor grasp of both concepts. We already restrict other freedoms that have a negative impact upon other people and this legislation is no different. Its the usual conduct of government in a progressive political country, get used to it!

We have eaten out more since the smokinmg ban came in than we had for the last 3 years, we can not be only ones that hate smoke with food.

I gave up smoking for the umpteenth times 20 years ago and have saved enough to be able to eat out free for years.

TTFN

Chris

We in Scotland have had the ban for some time now and I can tell the business minded of you that food sales have gone through the roof and staff retention has been vastley improved which all adds to the bottom line. Personnally I am glad of the ban and suggest you all stop whinning use it to benefit your business!!!

I'm fascinated by the debate on the smoking issue in the UK. I understand the passion that smokers have for their habit but it's a bit late now to be complaining. I believe there was a democratic decision made and smoking was banned. The time to get involved was during the debate, before the ban. You've lost this round. If as you say the next step is to ban smoking within 9 metres from a door, perhaps you should focus on that one now. It's the battle ahead you fight not the one that's over.

Comparisons to Hitler are sad. A horrible attempt to make a comparison between one of the last century's worst leaders and your own government's attempts to protect the health of it's population. Should we also berate vegetarians because Hitler encouraged that too?

I'm reminded of working in bars in Ireland in the 80's and 90's. Publicans there were encouraged to clean up their air as most pubs and clubs were in contravention of legislation concerning clean air in the workplace. Most chose to ignore that encouragement. Reasons for not taking action included, it's not that bad; it doesn't bother people; it's too expensive. Publicans there (in my memory) were given a chance to take action themselves because the government didn't want to get involved. Publicans own inaction led to a blanket ban on smoking several years ago. Publicans suffered, businesses closed. Who suffered and who closed? Those pubs who didn't, despite two years warning, prepare for the changes.

I'm a non-smoker who works in the bar industry and I couldn't care less whether you smoke or not. The ban in the country where I live has meant that I don't smell as bad at the end of the day and my morning cough has disappeared. It has had a positive effect on my work environment and I wouldn't like a return to the old times. To you smokers who talk of fighting and martyrs I suggest you choose your fights better. The ban has been enacted, it won't be reversed so shouldn't you be looking for the next challenge to your livelihoods and not banging on about the one you just lost.

Regards

Councils are paying huge wages for smoking detectives. Why should shop staff and pub landlords do their work for them and finish up being seriously injured or killed for telling people to put their cigarettes out.

I was amazed to see recently in the London Evening standard that a club in London (Heyjo)and a bar/restaurant (Abracadrabra) tel no 02079303222 run by a Dave West, info@heyjoclub.co.uk is fighting for the right to smoke. This in itself is not amazing, but one of the lawyers defending in the High Court is Cherie Booth QC!! Why has this not been exposed nationally, or has it? I have the cutting if anyone should require it.

Hi Roger,

You wouldn't be trying to advertise these places would you? I think the only things you didn't mention were GPS coordinates and a link to Google Maps. Regards to Mr West and glad to see he eventually got it all up and running.

JK

Hello All,

I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance.

Hello All,

I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think. Your honest feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

In my humble opinion, this blog has become overly dominated by the differing arguments presented by smokers and nonsmokers and their own personal views on the subject.
Logically speaking, the only purposeful argument should not about individual choices - but about laws that are, in their very nature oppressive to minorities.
If Hamish Howitt eventually manages to bring this issue to the European Court of Human Rights - it could WELL be decided that this prohibition is indeed oppressive and perhaps even unnecessary - and could be easily remedied by instead ordering (1) individual bar owners to make their decisions as to whether to operate non smoking premises or smoking premises.
And (2) by the requirement that air conditioning must be installed in premises where smoking is permitted.

Either of these choices would not endanger non-smokers' human rights - and acceding bar owners would put forever the whole social argument beyond discussion.
Democracy should not be based on emotional issues - it needs to be based on popular non oppressive laws - especially those made to guarantee the freedom of minorities to act without damage to the majority. Smokers are not asking for a lot - they want their rights restored, that's what they truly want.
KEEP DEMOCRACY - GET RID OF OPPRESSIVE LAWS. WHO NEEDS THEM?

Thanks so much for the depth at which you covered the topic.

Hey firstly not a bad post. I am not surely i entirely agree with this point of view. I would like to hear all the information before i get off the fence and pick which side i am on.

Without doubt agree with what you reported. Your reason was undoubtedly the simplest to understand. I tell you, I always get annoyed when folks talk about stuff that they clearly don't know about. You managed to hit the nail right on the head and talked out everything without complication. I hope, other folks can take a cue. Will be back for more. Keep it up!

"Green Smoke offers supreme Electronic cigarettes with disposable cartridges that compose of the highest smoke volume in the industry. With a variety of flavors and nicotine levels, Green Smoke's™ patented product offers convenience and exhibit performance that is unmatched. Green Smoke™ products have been independently tested for safety."

Many times it will take an individual that will put the words before you before you recognize that everybody will need to consider added proper care.

I am very pleased to of became a member of this specific online community and I look forwards to be able to speaking along with everyone throughout here before long.