Introducing laws to prevent people smoking in public areas was one of the only good things our previous govenrment did. I would be totally against repealing these lwas and for an extension with the ultimate aim of banning smoking comletely.

I do not see why having separate indoor areas for smoking is a problem. As long as pubs advertise the fact that they have a smoking area so everyone is aware before they enter.
The re-introduction of smoking in pubs and clubs would boost the trade and get some much needed money back into it. A nice welcome back to the traditional English pub is long overdue.

i agree the smoking ban has caused unneccesary damages to our buisnesses in britain,surely it should be their choice wether there buisness is a smoke free zone.the public does have a choice not to enter and go elsewhere.i myself am a smoker and feel isolated.even if we smoke we are still human and being punished for an addiction.

I totally agree with cantona_66. Why should non smokers be re-subjected to having to inhale passive smoke?

before the law came in many places had separate smoking areas, and this seemed to work ok. we should not be treated like naughty children and told we cannot smoke a cigarette, cigar or pipe while we enjoy a drink. if you object to smoke stay away from the smoking area...look at the problems binge drinking causes we dont hear cries of ban all alcohol do we? let us as adults make our own choices

This is entirely appropriate as it replaces the freedom of choice removed from the people on so many issues by the previous government.

Cigarette smoke is absolutely pervasive and whilst smokers with their dulled senses all fugged up with tar can't tell that it stinks in the rooms adjacent to their smoking room, as well as the room itself, all the none smokers would be able to tell. Ban it in beer gardens as well, so we can take our kids with us again, and go outside without finding an ashtray overflowing with smokers debris, or find ourselves sitting downwind of their stinking habit.

Businesses may be allowed to open smoking areas under 1 conditions:
They will continue providing non-smoking area with same quality of service.

I understand people's reservations agains banning smoking entirely. If they cannot accept a total ban then Government should take steps to ensure that smokers MUST NOT receive free NHS care. It is entirely inappropriate for people living a healthy lifestyle to pay taxes for treatment of people who voluntarily indulge in unhealthy habits.

As a general rule, we should not be looking to ban anything. We should be looking to restore freedoms and allow people to make their own choices. If some pubs, clubs, etc. want to become smoking then so be it. What business is it of the Government to dictate people's behaviour?

And I'm a non-smoker by the way - I just believe in personal freedom.

keep the ban. Why should non smoking staff etc in pubs be subjected to passive smoking? Smokers choose to smoke, they can do it outside.

Smoking as such is not illegal; nor is it immoral, at least where consenting adults are concerned. Smokers pay a huge amount of tax to the Government. And yet we can't light up in the pub, even if the landlord and the other customers think it's acceptable. Apart from anything else, this law is helping to destroy the British pub, a hugely important social institution which has historically been a tolerant place where everyone - even the sinner - is welcome. Legislation for intolerance in this context is, in this sense, deeply anti-British. What we need is a system of segregation - at the discretion of the landlord - combined with GOOD smoke extraction technologies. As for staff who work in the smoking area, we simply need to give THEM the freedom to choose. This really is all about freedom!

Since the smoking ban there has been a drop in cardiac deaths. The protection of staff exposed to smoke was one of the primary reasons for the ban. Introducing areas where smoking is allowed would expose them to secondary smoke potentially in breach of their rights but perhaps those in favour of reversing the ban think that there rights are more important. I am a smoker.

So many leisure businesses have suffered or gone to the wall because of the ban. In my own family, my daughter has lost licensed premises (and her home) because of a 65% drop in business after July 2007. This has entailed my grand-daughters having to move school at a critical time in their education.

Personally, I haven't stayed in an hotel since the law changed.

A smoking area, with staff being able to opt out of working there if they wish, would save and create jobs and save the cost of business failure.

The Landlord should be able to select whether wanted a smoking or non-smoking establishment - the customers are then free to select which they prefer to go to; as are staff. People need to take responsibility for their own lives & decisions.

Once you start on the slippery slope of banning things it just goes on & on.

As to the idea of declining NHS if you happen to smoke - don't be ridiculous it wouldn't stop there would it. It would get to the stage where you had to fill in a questionnaire (& provide proof) of you whole lifestyle.

The ban worked, I used to smoke but the ban made it so miserable that I stopped. I gave up over a year ago and it's great, I love not smoking. However, I stopped going to pubs because you weren't allowed to smoke there and I've never gone back..

Definately the ban is bad for business but it did me a huge favor.

Again, allow the freedom of choice for owners of pubs and restaurant to make the decision to allow smoking, and if non-smokers don't want to go in to those places they can choose not to.

Allowing Pubs and Clubs to allow smoking if they so wish is a no-brainer . Anyone with eyes can see the devastating effect this has had on the licenced trade . If you dont like smoking dont go to places that allow it , simple as that .

Why should smokers be denied their rights just because someone (who probably never goes there) demands a blanket ban ?

It would also give the economy a boost as pubs stop closing.

Smoking has never been proven to be any more responsible for life threatening diseases than the toxins we inhale everyday in our homes ie, air fresheners, cleaning products, fire retardents, vocs in paints etc, but is the most convenient thing to blame. This ban has been responsible for the closing of so many of our community based institutions, ie our pubs and social clubs. Spain and France are much more liberal about this rediculous law and allow smoking in separate rooms in restaurants and bars but us brits, as usual, have taken it much too far.

in response to cantona-66 i myself am a smoker and i agree with you about a complete ban on smoking, after all why should i contribute to the 9 billion pound tax that smokers pay to treat people like you in hospital. you do realise that it costs 1.5 billion pounds a year to treat smoke related diseases so that leaves 7.5 billion pounds of tax paid by smokers to treat everyone else.so yes in my opinion ban smoking completely and then whinging non smokers like you will probably have to pay another 10-15 pence in the pound in income tax to cover the n.h.s that way would be more fair then we are all contributing on a level par and i would save money on cigarettes but people like you would be the first to complain about paying more tax.i bet you are a non smoker who said that you don't go in to pubs because of the smoke to get it banned and they stay in the house because there is smoke in the street

in response to cantona-66 i myself am a smoker and i agree with you about a complete ban on smoking, after all why should i contribute to the 9 billion pound tax that smokers pay to treat people like you in hospital. you do realise that it costs 1.5 billion pounds a year to treat smoke related diseases so that leaves 7.5 billion pounds of tax paid by smokers to treat everyone else.so yes in my opinion ban smoking completely and then whinging non smokers like you will probably have to pay another 10-15 pence in the pound in income tax to cover the n.h.s that way would be more fair then we are all contributing on a level par and i would save money on cigarettes but people like you would be the first to complain about paying more tax.i bet you are a non smoker who said that you don't go in to pubs because of the smoke to get it banned and they stay in the house because there is smoke in the street

Cigarettes are not an illegal drug so there should be no petty laws to say people can't smoke in pubs, clubs, hotels etc. if they want to. People enjoy smoking. Non-smokers need to be provided with non-smoking areas but they shouldn't try to dictate to other adults whether they can smoke or not. Smokers know the risks to their health; it's their choice. People are killed and injured in car crashes but no one has suggested banning the car or stopping people from driving.

Totally disagree. If not outlawed all together, smoking should be limited further to within people's own cars or place of residence. I am sick of being stuck walking behind someone chain smoking down the street or in a queue etc. Smoking is a selfish habit and should not be inflicted on other people who do not wish to smoke. The banning in "public places" was one of the best things the previous government did and I wish they had gone further.

To see the elderly, having smoked all their lives, subjected to leaving the building to smoke is disgraceful. A separate room should be provided giving smokers and non-smokers the choice and equal respect. I have never smoked but don't see why smokers should feel inferior as long as choice is given.

I would like to add to the discussion that this should be about choice: whoever wants to be in a smoke free environment should be able to do so and who wants to smoke should be allowed to do so too.
Therefore to give the establishments a choice to provide areas where can and can't be smoked appears to be the "fair' solution. People who don't want to be exposed don't have to go there as much as I as a smoker most likely don't want to go to a place where I can't. Currently though I am forced to the outsides in any kind of weather!

I am a non smoker, but I would welcome bringing back smoking in designated areas inside pubs and clubs. Not so sure about restaurants though, but the atmosphere in these places has never been the same since the ban, and it would stop everyone hanging around outside all the time. ALLOW SMOKING AREAS IN PUBS AND NIGHTCLUBS please

I would like to add to the discussion that this should be about choice: whoever wants to be in a smoke free environment should be able to do so and who wants to smoke should be allowed to do so too.
Therefore to give the establishments a choice to provide areas where can and can't be smoked appears to be the "fair' solution. People who don't want to be exposed don't have to go there as much as I as a smoker most likely don't want to go to a place where I can't. Currently though I am forced to the outsides in any kind of weather!

When the smoking ban was introduced it was one group verses another. The non-smokers cannot deny they bullied to get their own way. There was no proper discussion - just a cut off. The ban should be lifted in principle, then have a proper discussion, then make an informed and proper decision that listens to everyone - not just one group ("the non-smokers").
People should be allowed to make there own decisions without prejudice from others. Until "the non-smokers" are prepared to listen and talk properly - I ignore them!
I used to go to local pubs on a regular basis to socialise with friends (quick drink here, quick drink there) - since the ban - I don't go anymore! Neither do any of my friends (non-smokers included).
The traditional British pub was always known to be a smoking environment - if non-smokers were that concerned for themselves they knew that was one place to avoid. If non-smoking pubs were viable, then why weren't their any set-up before the ban. Pubs are businesses after all - if there is a demand, there would be a non-smoking pub!

The appeal of these draconoian laws would be very welcome and an indication of this governments intention to reduce and eventually do awy with Labour's "Nanny State".

Can I concur with many of the other posters. I sincerely as a smoker do not want to inconvenience non smokers and separate, ventilated smoking rooms would be a great way to reversing pub closures and allowing choice for all.

The smoking ban is a disgrace and ANYONE who thinks the law must stay is not the sort of person I want to share a pint with. We (used to) have FREEDOMS in this country to make our own decisions.

We had a few non-smoking pubs prior to the ban. If most people wanted non-smoking pubs then the market would have dictated that they'd have flourished - which they did not. Most pub-goers are smokers and the industry has been destroyed by a law introduced by a few hundred fools who do not visit pubs.

Pubs no longer have an atmosphere - well, not until closing time when the curtains close and the ashtrays come out.

If you don't like smoking (which does NOT kill people passively - despite what ASH and previous Governments have told you) then don't enter a smoking pub. Is that so difficult to understand?

Pubs now are a shadow of their former selves.
Perhaps there was a more sinister sub plot to the smoking ban. This gov has long had a war on association of people. Anybody following a different lifestyle to the nanny labour approved, five a day drone is treated by default as a subversive to be controlled and dispersed to the back yard of the pub.
Smoking has always been seen as a social activity by smokers. It gets people together, they talk and interact. The most lively place in the pub is always the smoking shed. Go inside and you'll see miserable people sat in smug silence, marvelling at how they can now smell the musty food ingrained carpet.
Incidentally politicians need to know that this law is flouted widely with the support of many people. Bad law eventually gets ignored. just like the mobile phone ban in cars, absolutely unenforceable without an army of government superspies. Big brother may be watching us but we don't care, there will be a revolution in this country if it is not returned to a state where tolerance applies to everyone and not just muslims.

When the smoking ban is lifted in pubs and clubs etc. the government could introduce new regulations about air-conditioning for indoor smoking areas; we have the technology to minimise the amount of passive smoke in the air. If adults choose smoke in pubs then they are not smoking at home where children are often present.

The smoking ban, i would modify it to allow the pub owners to decide if their pub is smoke free or not, Give choice back to publicans. If they want to run a smoke free pub, their choice. The staff dont have to work there if they dont want.

The ban should go. There is absolutely no way that a ban removing all choice and opportunity of public recreation from a section of the population is fair or promotes equality or dignity.

So simple to create ventilated smoking areas, the idea of staff not being allowed to work where there is smoke is silly as people work in many other kinds of dangerous conditions, they simply sign waivers. Sure most bar workers would not object to signing a waiver, and if they do then they just work the non-smoking area.
If non-smokers want the beer gardens back, then give smokers somewhere else to smoke. The smokers were driven there by the ban.
Bars and pubs should be given the choice.

I was appalled when this TOTAL ban was introduced without any exemptions or choice being left to the individual or business. As an owner of a business with direct links to the hospitality industry I have watched a whole thriving economy disintergrate in a very short space of time. Spain have used a opt out/in scheme which I believe works very well, why can't we adopt something along this line?
The lack of tolerence by the non smoking public is bordering on the outright nasty. Freedom of choice surely works both ways.

This idea reminds me of when Edinburgh buses banned smoking in the front half of the top deck of buses.

Smoking is banned in enclosed public places. Good!

We hear the argument from non smokers that they should not have to suffer from passive smoking etc and they are having their rights violated, yet are smokers not having their rights violated as well by being dictated to and being treated like lepers. If I were drug addict, would I be expected to go and stand outside to take my methodone, I dont think so. Also this uneduacated rubbish about how much smokers cost the NHS etc. The money gained from tax on smoking is far higher than the cost of treatment.
I agree that in places where food is served then smoking should not be allowed, but in dry pubs it should be up to the landlord/landladys discretion. That way we all have choices, not just the antismoking brigade getting their own way all the time!!!

This was an ill thought out and planned law, a seperate, sealed area for smokers is not over the top for people to ask for. Throwing people into the unpleasent outside only resulted in patio heaters being bought by the thousand and they do a lot worse for the environment.

For the record, I don't think pubs should HAVE to ban smoking even if they serve food. Maybe I want a cig after my meal? Don't like it? Then don't go in a smoking pub!

I can't ever recall any non-smokers being dragged kicking and screaming into a smoking pub.

You non smokers demanding the right to smoke free pubs have a right to that. Us smokers have a right to carry out our legal activity in front of other adult smokers. No Problem, just do as they do in Spain, have a sign on the door stating that the pub is iether designated smoking or non smoking. Simple enough.
Everyones happy.

I totally agree with abolishing or at the very least modifying the smoking ban.

Cafe's, restaurants, pubs, clubs and ALL private businesses should be allowed to choose for themselves, whether to be totally smoking, totally none smoking, or half and half.

Then people would be able to choose for themselves which places they want to visit.

If there is one law which epitomises dictatorial state interference in personal choice, it's the smoking ban.

As others have mentioned, smokers have no wish to inconvenience anti-smokers who have strong views on smoking, so the obvious solution is for a system of smoking and non-smoking pubs, or separate rooms in which people may smoke should they wish.

The UK & Ireland are the ONLY two states in the EU not to offer a choice, both for smokers and the owners of pubs and clubs. This government paints itself as one committed to personal freedoms, but it will appear an empty claim if we continue to be almost alone in being denied a fair and common sense policy allowing choice for every citizen.

 

Proud to be in a smoke free country.

Smoke free please, people can ultimately do what they want but when you force it on other people AND put their health at risk I'm sorry but thats out of order.

Blake, how are you "forced" to enter a smoking pub?

blake no one is forcing you to do anything, at the end of the day the landlady/landlord own the business if they want a smoking pub , they shoud be allowed and if you dont want to enter then so be it, nobody is making you do anything, why are these ardent busybodies not getting the point?!

blake no one is forcing you to do anything, at the end of the day the landlady/landlord own the business if they want a smoking pub , they shoud be allowed and if you dont want to enter then so be it, nobody is making you do anything, why are these ardent busybodies not getting the point?!

Exactly. These anti-smokers cannot see reason. The smoking ban has literally ruined my life

Lets make some things clear before someone comes along with false information

For the record Roy Castle was cigar smoker, and the jumped trash story about second-hand smoke was complete rubbish. He worked in clubs for only a matter of months

Secondly if second hand smoke was so so bad, then the vast majority of the 30-50 year olds of this country would all be dead already, since most of their parents smoked in the same room as their children. People then blame asthma on smokers - smoking has been reducing for years, yet asthma has been decreasing! (ever thought it may be due to the increasing number of cars/lorries/planes??)

Thirdly their is increasing evidence that Human Papillomavirus (HPV) may be a contributing factor in lung cancer (you should highly consider immunising both your sons and daughters against this virus)

Forthly the Health and Safety Executive did years of research into second hand smoke in the workplace, and could find ZERO helth implications. This information was still in publication AFTER July 1st, 2007, until someone pointed this out to someone in Nu-Lab who promply had it removed. The H&SE do not write things that "may" be true, they write what their research has shown, and this shows that second hand smoke being a poison is total rubbish (but "oh" how so many people have now been brainwashed into believing it!!)

So we are now basically down to the non smokers complaining because they don't like the smell of tobacco smoke. Fair enough, I have no problem with that. Personally I like the smell. I do not however like the smell of B.O. that you now get in the pub. So should all people with B.O. be banned?? No of course not. I also do not like the smell of car fumes, so should all cars be banned? Again of course not

Us smokers want to be fair to non smokers. But there are so many anti smokers out there that do not see or believe in fairness and sharing of this Earth with smokers. They want smoking banned everywhere. This is ridiculous, and is rapidly getting to back-breaking point where the smokers will fight back, when all we really want to do is live happily together with you. What a spitefall lot these anti smokers are!

So what's the answer? Personally I think the original idea that pubs that serve food be non smoking, and non food pubs allow choice. When I say choice I mean fully smoking, or fully non smoking. Having separate smoking rooms would certainly be a step forwards (it is no pleasure standing outside when it is -3 degrees in the winter), but segregating smokers and non smokers would not change the problem our pubs have - they have lost the fun/banter/etc at the bar because conversations get cut off whilst the smoker has to disappear off somewhere to have a drag

Finally it makes be laugh (not) - all these people complaining about people smoking outside pubs and clubs. If the stupid idiotic ban wasn't introduced then non of these people would be there!! Der...

I sincerely hope that someone in Government sees sense, and repeals this dragonian ban. If not, well I may just have to leave this beautiful country

Doh! Smoing has been decreasing, yet Ashma has been INCREASING! (Sorry)

The EPA report was misinterpreted, as was the WHO report. This was proved in the US Federal Court, yet the EPA and WHO still advises that secondary smoke is harmful.

The figures are totally at odds, and the chances of causing cancer from second-hand smoke is statistically insignificant (10 in a million verses 12.5 in a million people who work in smoke workplaces).

Why is this false evidence allowed to be propagated? We've been hugely mislead, and a new report has never ever been commissioned.

In the meantime, smokers are forced to smoke outside, causing more litter. For a group that comprises of 20-30% of the population, and generate over £10 BILLION in taxs and VAT a year, why is this allowed?

It's almost like the Gov want to tell people to stop smoking, to cause a backlash, causing more to smoke. Can't we have a fact-based policy, and not this bullsh*t?

Yes, we were misled. Not only is an amendment of this rediculous ban based on the statistical relative risk of the harmfulness of passive smoke of 1.2 (=negligable, hence rediculously low)overdue, it is also time to curb anti-smokers funding for more rediculous research.
After all, did not even Dr. Michael Siegel, as a person strongly opposed to smoking, call for an end to junk science?
Was the blanket smoking ban not based on the harmfulness of passive smoking? Did these people think about pub closures following this ban?
Should the much cited trend to non-smoking continue, proprietors will close smoking lounges without an existing law. Until then the existing law should be amended and the proprietor should be given the opportunity to also cater for smokers, if so wished.

Pubs aren't just places where alcohol is sold, they are part of our history and British way of life. The smoking ban is helping to close them - and like other endangered species, once they are gone, they're gone for good.

I applaud the attitude this government is taking on civil liberties. However, in accordance with this spirit, I must insist that the blanket smoking ban is repealed or ammended in order to restore property rights. That is, that it should be up to the owner of the premises whether or not to permit smoking. After all, it is his property and tobacco remains a legal product. I believe this is urgently needed to prevent the decline in the hospitality industry and particularly the pub trade. A repeal or ammendment would restore freedom of choice and allow pubs to accurately reflect the market. Where there is a public demand for smoking to be permitted, the pubs must be allowed to accomodate this to ensure the survival of their business.

With regard to second hand smoke concerns, it is clear that the science behind the health claims made by the anti-smoking lobby is sketchy and inconclusive at best. New Labour’s blanket smoking ban was wholly disproportionate given the evidence. But even if we allow for the possibility that there may be some adverse health effects from ETS, bar staff and customers should be allowed to take that risk if they choose.

Smoking should be allowed in pubs and clubs that have an air conditioned separate area. Or allow one pub for smokers, another for non smokers (Who haven't been visiting pubs in any greater numbers, despite claiming they are much better..)

We lost our pub because of this stupid law.

There are many things about the smoking ban which I don't like - and I have posted a reasoned and reasonable comment about it on another part of this site. However, reading through some of these comments (and comments on other sites)I now think that the worst aspect of the ban is the way that a petty, spiteful, authoritarian, kill-joy side of the English character has been revealed. Notice how many shift the argument from "smoking" to "smokers". As if smoking alone defines the individual.
Last night I was looking through a history of jazz and blues. Nearly all of the photographs featured smoking or smokey rooms (as you might expect). They also featured some of the finest musicians of the twentieth century. All vile scum, according to some of you.
Oh, and it also amuses me how brave you all are now that you have the police on your side. Thirty years of pub-going and not one of you ever said anything to my face prior to the ban.

I have recently returned to the UK after living in Vancouver for the last 14 years and when smoking was banned there in bars and restaurants and even on bar patios, business increased as more people took advantage of a smoke free atmosphere to enjoy themselves. However, the sale of off-licence alcohol was controlled by the BC government which meant that it cost about the same to buy a beer in a bar as it did at the local beer store. There were no cut-price deals at supermarkets, which is the real reason for the decline of the pub in the UK. Keep the ban on smoking - it works in the long run for the health of employees and customers.

TOTALLY DISAGREE!

The ban should be kept, it makes going out in the public so much more pleasent - this has nothing to do with civil liberties

moking related diseases kill more people (around 5 million people per year) than HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria combined.

The World Health Organisation Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2009: Implementing smoke-free environments can be found here
http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/2009/en/index.html

Freedom of choice for all.

Very, very few are arguing for a return to 30th June 2007, however there is a case for allowing smokers, and moderate non-smokers a place to socialise free from unnessacary state intrusion.

Separation and ventilation was a perfectly reasonable compromised scuppered by a wholy false assurtion that there are no safe levels of ETS, there are safe levels of ETS, but no study would provide a low enough level to justify the action that the government of the time wanted to take. So ventilation was never seriously considered.

This was not a law, in my opinion, introduced to protect non-smokers, the risk of ETS is negligable, it was introducted in order to harrass smokers into quiting, and when government turns so decicivly again a large chunk of the population there is a serious problem.

An argument that we want to reduce smoking prevalence in subsequent generations seems reasonable to me, however attacking 20-30% of the current population for using a still legal substance is not reasonable.

What is not seen in the media is the exclusion and misery this law has inflicted on 100s of thousands.

The anti-smoking law shouldn't be reversed in anyway, smokers cost the NHS too much money as it is and we should move to stop smoking all together as we know it is very harmful to peoples health.
Even though the anti-smoking laws have stopped smoking in some places second hand smoke is still a problem and to allow establishments to have areas for smokers would just make second hand smoke worse.

Those who spout about freedom of choice for all are misguided. Non-smokers must also have the right not to be exposed to second hand smoke- particularly children. Additionally, research has shown that most people who smoke say they want to quit- they don't so much have a choice as an addiction. Repealing the ban will send this country backwards.
Furthermore, evidence has shown that the majority of people agree with the ban, and that introduction of the legislation in 2007 had no impact on businesses overall.

Someone earlier pointed out that as smoking has decreased - CHILD ASTHMA has INCREASED - "MANIFOLD" This is true! Passive smoke, if anything is BENEFICIAL to children. There are medical studies that confirm this but anti-smoker science now has almost total control of what studies are allowed to be carried out and what the results will conclude, working to an agenda to protect polluting industry and increase the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

It is also true that as smoking decreases, 'smoke related' diseases have increased, particularly cancers, including lung cancer. In the US, lung cancer increased by OVER 30% between 2000 and 2008 while over the same period the population increased by 8% and Smoking prevalence has reduced substantially since a peak in the 1950's.

How many deaths are the responsibility of anti-smokers who have diverted massive resources and attention away from REAL public health causes! The destruction of pubs and clubs is only an economic cost - others have paid much more dearly!

  

A very, very good point made by Kin_Free:

"How many deaths are the responsibility of anti-smokers who have diverted massive resources and attention away from REAL public health causes! The destruction of pubs and clubs is only an economic cost - others have paid much more dearly!"

It is the ANTI-SMOKERS who happily divert vital resources for one particular gain: "I don't wanna have to breathe filthy second hand smoke, it kills ME!"
Would they be so kind to tell this to a patient of an NHS trust running a costly non-smoking campaign whilst lamenting the lack of resources for diagnostic equipment and appropriate staffing levels? One has to bear in mind that these costly non-smoking campaigns were also imposed onto this trust in order to keep to the, then government, "guide lines" (no other option provided).
 
Non-smokers generally can be found to be either neutral, supporting or rejecting the asked for amendment of this blanket smoking ban and campaigns.
Anti-smokers, on the other hand, will resort to insults and insistance on their right to breathe in a smokeless environment and are peddling rather abstract (sorry!) ideas of how and why the smoking ban should be extended.

Please repeal the blanket smoking ban and allow for choice for ALL!

I have just returned from a holiday in Spain , and they have this old fashioned idea called " freedom of choice " , basically all bars and cafes etc have either a no smoking or smoking allowed sign in the window ! How dificult is that ?

We already tried allowing pubs and restaurants to choose whether to allow smoking. It didn't work - there ended up being practically nowhere people could avoid the smoke. Even supposed "non-smoking" sections often had lots of smoke drifting over into them. Remember coming home with your eyes stinging and your clothes needing to go straight in the washing machine? Please, let's not let a few selfish people drag us back to that.

There's a saying that "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Well, it's equally true that your right to smoke ends where other people have to breathe it against their wishes. I support people's right to smoke, but I can't support inflicting it on others.

I would also like to see this law amended as it creates some ridiculous situations. I used to work for Bury Council and it dreamed up a regulation that stated that nobody could smoke within 200 metres of a Council Building, easier said than done in a small town like Bury. It was just a potential 'management stick' that could be used against smoking employees.

At the new hospital in Manchester, they have a 'Smoking Ban Squad', people specifically employed to go and tell people not to smoke, they generally get a negative response. A thankless task and a waste of tax payers money. The loss of the smoking shelters means that smokers congregate around entrances meaning that everyone has to experience the smoke. Like it or not, a lot of patients and staff smoke, it is ridiculous to see sick people being told to stand outside in all weathers, I watched, with disgust, the Security Manager ordering patients, dressed in pyjamas and dressing gowns, on a cold night when it was raining heavily, being told to move away, watching them go out into the rain. For a lot of patients it is a means to get away from the ward when they are feeling stir crazy. Segregating smokers is more sensible than an unenforceable ban.

If the ban on smoking in public places gets revoked, perhaps we should balance that out by revoking free access to NHS services to people who smoke? Smoking is a major cause of disease and costs the NHS and businesses millions of pounds per year, as well as the misery it causes to families and friends (I've already seen one relative and one friend die of smoking related disease). The country is pretty much bankrupt. NHS spending may be ring-fenced, but if we have to start spending more on treating nicotine addicts then other NHS services will suffer. If you open more cancer wards, you'll have to close something else - paediatric intensive care perhaps? Anyone who wants to revoke the smoking ban should also choose which NHS service they will cut to pay for the extra burden added by additional smokers. Similarly, businesses should not be persecuted if they choose to discriminate against smokers - reduced pay for all those smoking breaks, no medical cover as part of the employee benefits etc.

Do not repeal the ban on smoking in public places.

There is LOADS of help for smokers I see no reason why they cannot quit if it bothers them so much but it is unfair to think that other peoples health should suffer for selfish benefits.

An NHS Information centre report taken after the implementation of the smoking ban in England July 2007; concluded that around one third of smokers about four million people, stopped using pubs entirely after the ban. A report from Mintel in 2009 shows that 16% of those questioned said the ban had disrupted their socialising and at least two milion adults were going out less and felt more trapped in their homes.
The ban has ruined my social life, it has caused tens of thousands of job losses, crippling much of the UK hospitality industry; it means people now drink on the street in a less controlled environment and that cigarette litter has doubled. A solution that’s fair for all, would be for separate ventilated smoking rooms to be provided in pubs and clubs that want this. Other peoples smoke would clearly not in any way interfere with those outside of the room. This would see millions returning to our pubs, at present smokers have no option but to stand outside in all weathers or to stay at home and be excluded social pariahs.
The ONS reported in 2006 and 2007 that at least 60% of those questioned preferred the choice of areas and venues over a total indoor ban. Perhaps the ban was brought in against the wishes of the majority?! Amend the smoking ban, to allow smoking rooms.What we have now clearly is not fair.

This website asks for suggestions to repeal laws that impinge upon civil liberties. The smoke-free workplace regulations don't reduce civil liberties, they have increased them - providing freedom from harmful tobacco smoke in a way that just wouldn't have been possible otherwise. Fudging the issue by allowing some workplaces to be more hazardous than others just becasue they serve alcohol obviously wouldn't make any sense.

So, there is no ethical argument for reversing this clear liberal reform. There isn't a pragmatic argument, either, as a healthier environment in pubs appears to have attracted as many new (and more frequent) customers as temporarily deterred indoor smokers. Where the pub trade as a whole is struggling, it's largely down to a tax imbalanace compared to supermarket drink sales and wider lifestyle choices. Either way, poisoning the atmosphere isn't going to help. This was a piece of enabling legislation passed by a free vote that has proved effective, successful and popular. Keep it that way.

Although I'm a non-smoker I originally didn't feel that a smoking ban in pubs and restaurants was necessary. However, after the ban was introduced I found the atmosphere in these places was much more pleasant and I was pleased not to leave an establishment with my hair and clothes reeking of fags. I also find that even small amounts of cigarette smoke can spoil a nice meal so I wouldn't want cigarettes to be reintroduced to restaurants.

I might have supported this idea if it had been asking for a separate smoking room to be permitted, as long as the fumes were vented to the outdoors and no smoke was allowed to leak into the main body of the premises.

LIFT THE SMOKING BAN NOW IN ALL ADULT INSTITUTIONS - PUBS, CLUBS, BINGO HALLS, BETTING SHOPS, CASINOS etc.
Get rid of Nanny State Politics.
Many pubs have more than one bar... so why not have a smoking bar and a non-smoking bar.
It would be much more sensible to lift the ban & allow individual publicans to decide whether they want to keep the ban or lift it in their own premises.
Then there would be non-smoking pubs for those who want them... and pubs that allow smoking for those that don't mind... but I bet I know where the life will be!
LIFT THE SMOKING BAN & STOP NANNY STATE POLITICS NOW!

The ban should be lifted 100% or at the very least there should be a warm dry area inside allowed where people can smoke as with most of the rest of Europe.

I agree totally, allow the freedom of choice for owners of pubs and restaurant to make the decision to allow smoking, and if non-smokers don't want to go in to those places they can choose not to.

More people die from smoking in the UK than die from using alcohol, drug misuse, suicide, road accidents and diabetes put together. That’s a fact. Most of those people have claimed at some point that they wanted to give up. However, many couldn't, and for some, even though they did, it was too late.

Arguments about choice are only meaningful when people genuinely have freedom of choice. Tobacco is both immensely harmful and addictive. If you are addicted to something, your own freedom of choice is totally and utterly compromised.

Let’s not repeal a piece of excellent public health legislation that is something to be really proud of. However, in the spirit of compromise I’m happy to suggest that we should seriously consider repealing the ban when the tobacco companies take the nicotine (or any alternative addictive chemical) out of their products!

A bit of insight as to how we ended up in this sorry state:
 
In 1975, at a UN World Conference on Smoking and Health, England’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir George Godber, suggested that, in order to get rid of smoking, “it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children”.

Between 1981 and 2006, sixty-four epidemiological studies attempted to expose a link between second-hand smoke and, mainly, lung cancer and heart disease. Some of these are massive, long-term studies; others involve no more than a dozen or so subjects. The results are:

Passive smoking is beneficial……………………………………2 studies
Passive smoking is harmful……………………………………………9 studies
Neither harmful nor beneficial…………………………………53 studies

Needless to say, the 9 positive studies were sufficient to convince the tobacco control movement that passive smoking posed enough of a risk to non-smokers to warrant its prohibition in almost every public – and many a private – meeting place in the country.

In the build up to the smoking ban, ASH sent registered letters to 170 hospitality trade bodies, warning that legal action will be taken on behalf of staff who believe they’d been damaged by second-hand smoke. At the same time, they launched a campaign to invite these employees to sue their irresponsible employers. ASH would provide the legal team.

And yet, when a French widow tried to sue the EU Commission for the lung cancer she claimed her husband had contracted after 39 years in a smoky workplace, she failed all three times. The Medical Committee had judged ‘that the connection between the disease and Mr Labate's professional activities was not sufficiently established.’ In other words, epidemiology is too vague to apply to a disease that has so many possible causes. No one is likely to get sued for allowing passive smoking.

In the very old days, pubs had a Snug & Lounge & Smoking Room.

Why can they not do that now? I agree smoking is bad for you & I am a smoker. but I think pub landlords should decide themselves whether they have a smoking room inside or not.

Too many pubs and workforce have been lost since the smoking ban came in.

Many non-smokers said they would go into pubs with the smoking ban, so why are thousands of pubs, bingo halls, working men's clubs closing?

Let them go to a non-smoking pub & the smokers go to theirs.

More revenue for the taxman & goverment.

Simple.

There should be freedom of choice so that smokers and non-smokers BOTH have places they can go to socialise in comfort. It's as simple as that.

The issue is, smoking affects those around the smoker. Non smokers have no choice but to breathe smoke, smell of smoke, be ill from smoke. Smoking is not like drinking; I can sit next to a drinker and their drinking doesn't make me have to go home and wash my clothes or make me ill. This fundamental difference seem to pass smokers by completely. Unless smoking is outside or in ones own house, it affects others. This fundamental fact seems to pass smokers by completely.

Re liberties:
- everyone has a right (and an absolute need) to breathe safely
- no one has a right to knowingly endanger the air breathed by others, regardless of whether this happens at home, at work or at leisure
- I have absolutely no objections to people eating tobacco, sniffing tobacco or taking it in via any other bodily orifice, regardless of any harm this may cause them as individuals

Re scientific evidence:
- I'm convinced by the World Health Organisation and the many other disinterested, reputable and expert bodies who state that passive smoking is dangerous
- Anyone with a vested interest can always find scientific evidence produced by people who also have a vested interest

Re separate areas/ventilation:
- Smoke drifts
- There is reputable scientific evidence that most ventilation which makes the air apparently smoke-free does not actually clean the most insidious of the toxins produced by cigarette smoke

Re the demise of some pubs:
- if an establishment's offerings depend wholly on the sales of alcohol in a smoky environment, perhaps they are no longer offering enough to an adult public which wants a more pleasant way of passing leisure time

That said, a very good point was made in a previous post about the prices supermarkets are allowed to charge for alcohol - in a sane country, non-alcholic drinks should never be more expensive, but that's a separate debate.

Have you seen Nick Cleggs new video on the home page?! He states "Obviously we will not consider changing some laws like the smoking ban".

Maybe we only have ourselves to blame. We have allowed the government and anti-smokers to dictate our lives and choices for a long time.

No-one seems to be able to stand up to them. Instead of getting out and about and going face to face with them, through individual discussions, arguments and demonstrations, we have spent all our energy typing on blogs and web sites, where it is easy to ignore us!

At least in the 60's and 70's we had people power :)

Repealing or amending the smoking ban would be a massive step backwards. It is so much nicer going out now and I am more likely to do so. Am sick of being bullied by smokers. The ban is here, face up to that and get on with your lives.

Can we get this straight once and for all.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PASSIVE SMOKING
It's just as fake now as it was when Hitler's mob called it passivrauchen.

Some people choose to smoke, while others choose not to do so. It should be possible to find a happy medium to cater for the needs of either group without impinging detrimentally upon the other.

Rather than an outright smoking ban, which prevents anyone from enjoying a cigarette in a pub or restaurant with their drink or meal, provision could be made for smokers in self-contained, properly ventilated rooms.

Alternatively (or in addition), allow each establishment to choose if they will be smoking or non-smoking and indicate clearly which.

Regardless, children should always be protected from having to breathe in smoke.

Excellent: this country was based on freedom of choice and respect for others. Pity our charming Mr Clegg has already said (after this "consultation" started) that there will be no smoking ban review. Seems like Ms Arnott of ASH has been round there and threatened him with something horrible.

Problem is with comfortable separated rooms suggested, I have recently realised is the lack of supervision by bar staff.

Would all the smokers who want such places (which on the face of it allow a good compromise) be happy if the local drug dealers took them over as nice, enclosed, private spaces.

Nor would it be fair to all those non smokers who have stuck by their local with pub league games have the choice of non smoking taken away. No doubt many pubs would choose to allow smoking in one room, so there would be no avoiding the smoke if they wanted to continue with the pub games.

 Posted by MrsArcanum July 16, 2010 at 16:04
"Problem is with comfortable separated rooms suggested, I have recently realised is the lack of supervision by bar staff."

There is no problem here - these COMFORTABLE rooms would not require "supervision" - they could be serviced by staff who themselves are smokers, or by non-smokers, if they wish to do so, who do not share the anti-smokers FEAR.

"Would all the smokers who want such places (which on the face of it allow a good compromise) be happy if the local drug dealers took them over as nice, enclosed, private spaces."

Definitely one of the most intellectually challenged statements here.

 "Nor would it be fair to all those non smokers who have stuck by their local with pub league games have the choice of non smoking taken away. No doubt many pubs would choose to allow smoking in one room, so there would be no avoiding the smoke if they wanted to continue with the pub games."

If a smoke-friendly pub has pub league games on just think of the many smokers who have not enjoyed these games for the last 3 years. But rest assured, there will be pub league games in non-smoker pubs as well. Feel free to join them!

Do non-smokers realise how the smell of DAMP clings to clothes and hair? Of course, when you live in a house with damp problems you become immune to the smell, but at least with smokers the awful fustiness is either masked or the smoke itself kills off the spores that cause the smell in the first place.

It's surprising, really, the number of people who live in damp houses and have no idea that they do.

The original ban was introduced when the public and MP's believed that second-hand smoke was harmful to health. However, impartial reviews of the actual results from the studies on this issue, show no significant impact on health. In fact, children brought up in a smoking household actually have a lower incidence of lung cancer than children brought up in a non-smoking household.
 
The closure of pubs and other businesses, as well as the social disruption, is therefore unnecessary.

This ban was introduced hastily on hyperbole preying on people's fears by the anti-smoking lobby. They will continue to push for further extension of this ban.

Enough is enough - bring back common sense and repeal this ban.

It was only an experiment but has proved to be extremely costly and has ended up as merely a campaign of hatred, fuelled by fear. The end result. Lots of businesses ruined. Lots of jobs lost. Supermarkets profit,s up. Friends arguing. Relationships strained and more people than ever smoking.
The UK is the laughing stock of Europe.
The coalition has made a start of getting rid of the many silly and useless laws brought in by the last government but the one that impacts the most on people up and down the country is most definitly the smoking ban. The time for a re-think is long overdue.

We look to governments to prevent 80% of the people being able to dictate what 100% of the people should do.That is a complete distortion of true democracy. 80% of people should have been able to say, quite rightly, that they did not want to breath in tobacco smoke. What they should not have been allowed to do is stop the 20% of people who smoke from doing so in relative comfort. The smoking ban was a green light by a failed goverment for persecution of a minority by the majority and would be completely untenable in any other area of life that involved tolerance towards individuals. There can be no freedom at all in this country unless people are free to enjoy their habits without being persecuted by the majority. Protect the rights of non smokers - I would support that in any way I could. Why won't they support me in my right to enjoy a smoke with fellow smokers.

Oh, and while we are at it. I expected nothing less in 2007 than the draconian law we now have as regards smoking and the license that it allows non smokers to pass moral judgement backed by the laws of the state.One expects such things from a Labour Government. What is appalling is how this state of affairs can persist within a Conservative/ Liberal Coalition. I think some people need to address a dictionary and find out just what the title of their political party means.

Oh, and while we are at it. I expected nothing less in 2007 than the draconian law we now have as regards smoking and the license that it allows non smokers to pass moral judgement backed by the laws of the state.One expects such things from a Labour Government. What is appalling is how this state of affairs can persist within a Conservative/ Liberal Coalition. I think some people need to address a dictionary and find out just what the title of their political party means.

A message to all anti smoking posters on this site.
Give me permission to open just one boarded up pub of the many in my town and grant me a special licence to allow smoking on the premises. Make that licence as expensive as you wish and put as many stringent conditions on my contract as you like.
I guarantee that within two or three years I would be very financially comfortable and have one of the busiest establishments in town.
My point - simple! If you think that you can forever deny market forces such as that then I suggest that you are burying your head in the sand. Market forces will prevail whatever your stance on smoking

I totally agree with notbinfooled.....the only place left in this country where people could associate freely was the pub. Everything else is monitored, either through tv, pc, or cameras. I heard that there was a plan to force pubs to collect images as well, for use by our late unlamented government. So of course, the answer would be to force the pubs to close, but use a stalking horse to do it, and since smoking is so divisive, people are distracted by the argument and cannot see the real agenda. I do not smoke, nor do I enjoy it, but we lose a huge part of our freedom and heritage when our pubs close.