ALMOST three quarters of pub licensees say the smoking ban has been bad for the pub trade, according to a poll by two industry bodies.
Almost half of those (47%) had laid off staff as a result of the ban, according to BII (British Institute of Innkeeping) and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations (FLVA).
The groups released the findings to coincide with the closing date of the Government's consultation into future smoking controls, including a proposed ban on cigarette vending machines.
The poll found 74% of licensees said the ban had been bad for the pub and bar trade in their area, with 80% saying they continued to sell cigarettes to try to keep their smoking customers on the premises.
Just 14% believed the ban had been good for trade.
Just over 900 licensees out of the 17,600 who received the survey replied, following a similar poll three months after the ban came into effect on July 1 last year and an earlier poll in autumn 2006.
In 2006 54% of pub trade was estimated to come from smokers, compared to 38% now, the study found.
However licensees claimed there had been "almost no increase" in trade from non-smokers to compensate for the loss, while smokers who did visit made shorter visits.
The poll found 42% of licensees thought a ban on cigarette vending in pubs would further damage business.
Landlords receive between 20p and 25p from every packet of cigarettes sold from vending machines in their pubs.
BII chief executive John McNamara said: "As an industry we have already suffered massive collateral damage in the war against tobacco.
"This study found 42% of our members believe that a ban on vending will be bad for trade, at a time when many are struggling to preserve their viability as small businesses and vital community assets."
Mr McNamara added: "We do not believe that vending in pubs is in any way a significant source of cigarettes for underage smokers and, as with the smoking ban, the effect will be just to drive our customers away."
Tweet
Smoking ban bad for pub trade
September 08, 2008
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
citycentre, manchester (08/09/2008 at 15:20)
maybe journalists can learn some maths?
according to the numbers quoted in the story a massive 3.8% of licensees actually say this
Polky (08/09/2008 at 15:24)
Do you not see what is going on?
Killing two birds with one stone by stopping people drinking as well as smoking?
Backfiring isn't it.
We need to get a grip of this insane government and their nannying lies aimed at being "in our benefit" when there is absolutely NO evidence that passive smoking has any adverse effects AT ALL, ANYWHERE, EVER.
If you know of a peer reviewed study which shows that there IS a link, then please let me know.
Blue Caz, Fallowfield (08/09/2008 at 15:31)
Don't you think the cheap prices in the supermarkets is the real culprit?
curiousyellow, Rusholme (08/09/2008 at 15:37)
yeah, here's another one for you...
...bears **** in the woods!
ChorltonRed, Manchester (08/09/2008 at 16:00)
Ace Shakepseare, manchester (08/09/2008 at 16:23)
Bean B4, manchester (08/09/2008 at 16:28)
Pubs and smoking: it's like horses and carriages!
Polky (08/09/2008 at 16:33)
Proof please. The government can't come up with any, so I don't expect you too either.
"Sorry but we need cleaner places for recreation where we can have a meal and our children can play and breath fresh air we dont want to breed yet another generation of people who suffer with lung problems and heart problems."
We had them as well. The were called Beefeater and carvery for eating in and you even had the big pubs with the supervised kids playground attached.
Why couldn't they allow the breweries and councils to allow these establishments to co-exist with one another? I'm sure, as an adult, that you don't like being told what you can and can't do legally (they ARE legal).
"move on and enjoy the modern way of entertainment."
What's that then, getting cheap booze from the supermarket and sitting at home getting wasted instead?
The smoking ban was always going to kill the pub trade just like it has done in Ireland. We told you so, but you lot insisted on going ahead and making these people unemployed.
Black Flag (08/09/2008 at 16:49)
"i dont want my children living in a culture which dosnt resemble mine" & "when people come to britain to live they should respect my culture,rather than try and change what my forefathers fought to keep"
But, when you decide you don't like something and you want to change things to fit in with your vision of the way people should live their lives, it's a case of:
"Public houses have had their day and times move on," "we need cleaner places for recreation" & "move on and enjoy the modern way of entertainment"
The word "hypocrite" springs to mind.
hodie, wiltshire (08/09/2008 at 17:08)
Also the link between smoking and cancer is a scientific fact so please cut the **** on it being "unproven".
Polky (08/09/2008 at 17:21)
Correct.
However, there is no proven link between passive smoking and cancer. The only evidence being lots of reports claiming a link with no scientific basis and successfully brainwashing the gullible masses into thinking it's harmful.
Find me some proof if you think there is any... Go on, I dare you to look.
hodie, wiltshire (08/09/2008 at 19:53)
for a summary of the data on this topic I suggest you look up "Igor Rosov" of the World Health Organiation. Geneva for a summary. most of the evidnce saying that it had no effect was funded by the tobacco companies and the data is suspect. does that help?
citycentre, manchester (08/09/2008 at 20:12)
from my own, entirely unscientific, observations i would say the biggest drop in numbers as been in the last 3-4 months rather than over 12 months, possibly as people have less money to spend
i probably go out to pubs as much or more now than before the ban, as i know i can pop in for a quick pint and not have my house stink like an ashtray the next morning. but i tend only to stay for 1 or 2 drinks so am nit much use for pub profits
the biggest reason for not going out is price, why go to an overpriced bar for a beer or wine, when i can get just as good a bottle in for the price of one glass out? pubs (in the city centre anyway) need to get prices down to sensible levels again
dave pickup (08/09/2008 at 20:26)
Trouble is,there would have to be spotters on the door in case they get raided by the Brown's Shirts!!
Tim Clarke, Wigan (08/09/2008 at 21:09)
Really? You mean most studies not funded by the tobacco industry elicit statistically significant results? Very, very few individual studies have ever provided a statistically significant result. In fact, those concluding that passive smoking does not pose a discernable health risk outnumber them by 6 to 1.
Having researched the subject in some detail, I am led to believe by epidemiologists that numerous studies which do not display statistically significant results, when examined together, can provide statistically significant results.
Yet the increased risk of children contracting leukemia from residential exposure to overhead powerlines, borne out by various studies, is around 70% (RR 1.70). The increased risk of contracting lung cancer / heart disease from passive smoking is approx 25% (RR 1.25). Do medical authorities deem overhead powerlines to be a substantial health risk to children? Well, no actually. The WHO, BMA, etc., are unanimous in erring on the side of their being harmless.
Sorry, but you'll have to find a better argument than the long discredited "argumentum ad verecundiam" (appeal to authority). An argument is never won or lost by appealing to authorities. So let's argue about the actual evidence.
alvinlwh (08/09/2008 at 21:30)
Mr Negative and Fedup, Merseyside (08/09/2008 at 22:37)
It should be like the old days you know the lounge, the snug, the darts room whatever you know what I mean... That way when a non smoker walks through the crowd at the front door he's not gasping for air when he gets in the pub. Which according to the law is still
not allowed. Bad call to ban smoking in the pub.
Dennis the Menace, Hyde (09/09/2008 at 01:26)
I have no doubt that smoking is bad for a persons health, it has been proven time and time again ....BUT .....THE GREAT BRITISH PUB is, or should I say, WAS, one of the cornerstones of our local society, a meeting place where people could enjopy a variety of events, whereas now, if people want to smoke they have to huddle outside, a bit like hiding round the bike sheds at school isnt it ??, this is what has helped more than anything else in the decline of our Pub trade.
Is it not time that when certain laws are ushered forward that the ordinary folk start to make their feelings and wants known !!!
Like everything this Government does ..... it takles the easy problems, not ones like Knife Crime and Gun crime !!!!
Polky (09/09/2008 at 07:34)
No not really.
In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not “statistically significant”. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people’s eyes, it is no risk at all.
You should look up Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking. He isn't worried, so why the outrage?
Snare Drum 54, Ashton-u-Lyne (09/09/2008 at 12:05)
Polky (09/09/2008 at 13:33)
I agree. I don't smoke.
I'm just here to point out the hypocrisy of it all.
The government use the media to get the masses to believe that something is wrong (smoking, CO2, congestion, etc.) and they need to put it right, because we can't possible carry on the same way that we have been for the last 100 years.
It's quite clever really.
Fool the people and then make the people do the work. Which allows the government to "fund" the changes through increasing taxes which the people don't mind about because they are being saved from certain doom.
Ever watch Yes Minister?
hodie, wiltshire (09/09/2008 at 14:49)
The general consensus is that there is a small but significant increase in risks of cancers in those subjected to passive smoking.
Jay B, oldham (09/09/2008 at 14:50)
problem is at the momment the triple whammy of the economic downturn with people spending less mixed with the rises in costs of drinks you buy at the pub and the ban on smoking have hit pubs very badly.
Sparky was the best ever (09/09/2008 at 15:08)
In reality, the number of pubs may go down, or the smokers will get into the habit of not smoking in a pub. Either is good for me. It may even encourage more non smokers to go to pubs, even if they don't drink.
Loss of industry will make the remaining pubs more competitively priced and better kept up. Goodbye to those flea pits and the alcoholics bar flies contaminating the whole room with their chain smoking.
Sparky was the best ever (09/09/2008 at 15:14)
That daft idea means they don't get 5 pints in at 1:45 am, then get thrown out at the same time as everyone else, then get into a fight over a taxi and actually get their skulls smashed in.
24 hour licensing doesn't mean 24 hour drinking. It means staggered chucking out (or leaving) times. It also means they go out and drink at a steady pace instead of rushing beer & chasers down their necks because they're about to have their beer supply shut off.