Supermarket Sweep? (Smoking in general)

Member Name: thedevilinme

Product:	Smoking in general
Date:	20/12/08 (170 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Cleaner pubs

Disadvantages: More tax for non smokers!

So, there it is, the smoking ban in public has failed to halt the growth of nicotine junkies in the U.K, and most definitely the cancerous growths inside them. According to a recent NHS health survey, involving some 17.000 responders, although the survey thankfully found no rise in smoking in female groups, they did find the first rise in the male age group of 17-35 for along time, especially in the amount of cigarettes they smoke. Sadly the number of fags enjoyed by working-class men has also gone up, ironically the smoking bans target group, working class people now 73% of all smokers, always a right-of-passage in this particular group.
The new level of illegality seems to have made it cool again, especially in Scotland, where 30% of the population still smokes, up 1% since their smoking ban came in. Baring this in mind why didn't the government do the transition over a longer period in public places, especially in the hard pressed pub trade, maybe allow smoking rooms in the pubs for the next three years and then no more. Hell, why not some pubs just for smokers only? I have never smoked and never complained about people who do smoke, especially in puibs. It's all part of the atmosphere and what another vice to bring in taxes I personally don't have to find on my income tax. I don't see why smokers should be put out in the rain getting wet when we are inside in the warm pubs and bars drinking another nasty vice that's called alcohol that causes just as many health problems as those fags. Isn't the point of a pub to enjoy our toxic vices?

Anyone who has been in a bar since the ban was introduced in July 2007 will know full well they aren't as busy anymore, some fatally so, especially the suburban and village pubs away from town centers, three closing every week across the land. Yes we have too many pubs in the U.K and closing a few isn't a bad thing, hopefully pepping up the atmosphere in the others, but those smokers are staying away from the remaining pubs too. In fact the ones that moaned the most about smoky pubs haven't bothered to fill the gaps in the smokeless pubs. But I think we knew already that the people in favor of the smoking ban were the least likely to come into contact with smokers in public places anyway, this issue really about the middle-class not liking the often grubby habits of the working class. The biggest annoyance of the smoking ban is that lost tobacco tax has been passed on to pub drinkers with that year-on-year 5% alcohol tax increase.

Let's be honest guys, smokers prefer to stay at home now or go around a mates to drink, and if they are supping cans or sipping wine then they are also smoking, the reason why the survey saw a rise in the amount of cigarettes smoked per person. One-in-three in the same survey said the smoking ban has influenced their decision to stay home where they can still smoke hassle free - be it around their children. I suspect we will also see a similar survey in a year's time from the NHS on the rise of asthma, breathing related disease and cot deaths in the family home.

The ban was officially introduced to help the health of people in the work space, especially bar staff and blue collar factory workers. But the irony was that the biggest reduction of bar staff exposure to smoke was when the pub closed and they got fired! Another irony of the ban was that bar staff were the most likely group to smoke at work, and as they couldn't they didn't seem to want to work in pubs as much, one of the attractions of the job. Seven out-of-ten bar staff and landlords smoke in the U.K. Again, the idea that thousands of non smokers are dying of passive smoking in public spaces is spurious and unproven. Didn't hey tell us thousands would die of Mad Cow Disease? And what happened to Bird Flu?

I personally am not a great believer in the idea this ban was about helping workers stay healthy because at the same time our government pushed through 24 hour drinking, far more of a problem for bar staff and customers alike. If they did care about our health then why do we have the NHS postcode lotteries going on when thousands of people need cancer drugs? Where's the immediacy in healthy concern for women that get breast cancer or the elderly who need dementia drugs?

That violence and delinquent drinking explosion that has peeped up since the irritable smoking ban is reflected in casualty numbers increasing 18% at weekends in our hospitals across the country since the ban was introduced. Britain has seen abnormally cold weather at the start of this winter (bloody global warming!) and the clash with our 24 hour drinking culture has been more abrasive this time, especially young girls hitting those icy pavements in skimpy dresses. With more people drinking that increasingly cheap supermarket beer (more on that later) at home before they go out, this years winter has seen a 35% rise across the country of ambulance call outs on this time last year in the party season. If you're at home partying with those cans before you're going out you are going to drink and smoke more and so get into more problems.

Now as much as we dislike the French they weren't having any of it when their smoking ban came in, openly smoking in bars and paying the petty fines. They started their ban back in 2004 and have also seen a rise in smokers. I suppose you could ask a cynical question here that did the British government see those figures and try to 'stem' the fall of smoking numbers we have seen in the U.K by making smoking naughty again so more people took it up and they recovered the lost tax they have seen in the last ten years? The smoking ban in pubs actually increased tobacco revenue because of the price hikes but seriously decreased alcohol duty in those rapidly emptying pubs.

The other possibilities on why they introduced the ban may indeed been health related, trying to make people healthier on the whole, but just to cut health spending so to soften up the NHS and make it healthier for private companies to buy big chunks up. We know that health privatization is beginning to happen, and as we have all seen with dentistry, most us currently have a chipped tooth or two that we would have never have had five years ago because of that slow creep towards paying big bucks. Smoking and fatty foods are the biggest cancer causes and so if less people got ill that way then the private health firms would be interested in buying into the NHS. At the moment they just target the middle-class, who are all too keen to go private as they don't like mixing with the great unwashed they increasingly have to on public transport. Who ever wins the election will look to privatize more of the health service, especially if Mandelson is involved. Again, I just don't believe the smoking ban is about making us healthier.

My other theory on the introduction of the ban is a little bit more cynical and what politics is really about. We know from the introduction of the 24 hour drinking laws that booze is doing even more damage and much more is being sold from the supermarkets than ever so that decision wasn't about our health, and so why should the smoking ban be? I suspect what we are seeing is the raw power of the huge supermarkets, who have edged out the powerful tobacco lobbies from seats at the political top tables now, no coincidence that Tesco has become Britain's second biggest company off the back of New Labor policy.
When Blair and co came in it was the supermarkets and their lobbyist who were there by his side, the biggest two donors of the Millennium Dome, the object the vacuous creation of Peter Mandelson. But what if the Dome was never meant to be a success back then as it is now as the brilliant 02 Arena? If it was then why not make it the 02 Arena in 99-2000? What if it was there just to hoover up donations for the Labor Party - if you support the Dome then we will support your businesses? It's no coincidence that the retail giants that supported the Dome project are the top four today, even in the recession. If only Woollies had invested in the Domes 'Human Zone than who knows?

What I'm saying is that the supermarkets wanted a return on their £7.6 million pound investment in the Dome and are now seeing it. Not only has the smoking ban driven the pub punters into the supermarkets to drink at home, they, of course, have bought their fags there too. And with the recent announcements that newsagents will have to have all their cigarettes under the counter and out of the sight of children by 2012, guess who has lobbied for a semi exemption from that law? Yep, the supermarkets! Many newsagents will go under if they lose cigarette sales and that will simple mean more business for the big supermarkets. And with Woollies offering 300 vacant plots on prime high street retail spots next year those supermarkets and their booze and fags will be in the box seat to clean up those central tobacconist and newsagents. The counter ban is supposed to put off kids from smoking, kids, after all, where nearly all smoking starts. But as it's illegal to sell fags to kids in these shops then this law is either a pointless ban or a tacit accusation from the government against the predominately Asian corner shops and newsagents that they are openly breaking the law on selling fags to kids and this is their punishment. The only other option is my theory that the big supermarket lobbyist pushed for the laws so to crush those corner shops and newsagents. Knowing the way they work after working for them for 8 years after leaving college I'm pretty sure that's the deal.

Summary: Cleaner pubs but smellier toilets..