ASH call for separate smoking rooms!

I have been a little disingenuous as this piece of ASH memorabilia comes from 1999. It was rare then even to have a separate smoking room and I am sure most of us remember that they were fairly empty anyway.

New ASH guide shows non-smoking provision in pubs & restaurants is good for business

Tuesday 14 September 1999
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to ASH call for separate smoking rooms!

  1. Jonathan Bagley says:

    You should download that page and save it. Links don’t work for ever.

  2. daveatherton says:

    Hi Jonathan lets see if this works.

    file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/MYasin/Desktop/Ash.separate.htm

  3. xopher says:

    “ASHDirector Clive Bates said: “There’s a lot of middle ground between atotal ban on smoking and no provision at all for non-smokers. ”
    Well I’ll be buggered – Some swine stole the middle ground ‘cos ASH stands by is total ban!

  4. Ed says:

    No beneficial effects on this business.

  5. JOHN ERKLE says:

    ASHDirector Clive Bates said: “There’s a lot of middle ground between a total ban on smoking and no provision at all for non-smokers. Our guide will help by showing what has already been achieved in practice in successful pubs and restaurants.

    I say we ban all the non-smokers from smoker friendly businesses! REPEAL THE BAN NOW!

  6. Rose says:

    Letter to The Publican re. protecting employees from passive smoking
    7th June 1999

    Dear Editor

    Re: smoking in pubs

    It is true that the Health and Safety Executive is developing a new Approved Code of Practice to deal with passive smoking in the workplace (Pubs face new smoking bans, Code is a blow, 7th June 1999). All the ACOP will do is provide meaningful guidance on how the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) should be applied to tobacco smoke in the workplace. This law already exists and has no exemptions for the hospitality industry. The ACOP will clarify the law and help publicans comply with it.

    A new ACOP would not mean that all smoking must be banned in pubs. The heart ofthe law is that employers have an obligation to do what is reasonably practicableto reduce their employees’ exposure. That could include segregation,ventilation, banning smoking at the bar or other measures. It also means the ‘do nothing and ignore it’ approach is not an option. The best approach for any pub is to wholeheartedly embrace the Charter agreed by the Government and trade bodies such as ALMR and BII and to do what is reasonable and practical to protect their employees. That is good professional business, and it should not be a cause for alarm, despair or resistence.

    Yours sincerely,
    Clive Bates
    http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_xifsk91p.htm

    ASH and Thompsons’ Tell Employers: Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned Over Secondhand Smoke
    Monday 12 January 2004

    “The hospitality trade faces a rising threat of legal action from employees whose health is damaged by secondhand smoke, after a new tie-up between health campaigning charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and the UK’s largest personal injury and trade union law firm Thompsons was announced today.

    ASH has sent a registered letter to all the UK’s leading hospitality trade employers, warning them that the “date of guilty knowledge” under the Health and Safety at Work Act is now past, and that employers should therefore know of the risks of exposing their staff to secondhand smoke. Employers who continue to permit smoking in the workplace are therefore likely to be held liable by the courts for any health damage caused. ASH and Thompsons intend to use the letters in any future court cases as evidence that employers have been fully informed of the issue.

    ASH and Thompsons are also planning further steps to encourage employees who believe their health has been harmed by smoking in the workplace to seek legal advice on making a claim for compensation. These will be announced shortly.”

    http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/ash-and-thompsons-tell-employers-dont-say-you-werent-warned-over-secondhand-smoke

    ASH Political Bulletin 2004
    Letter to the Publican

    Managing Director of The Massive Pub Company

    “The only ultimate provision and safety for us will be a smoking ban.
    We all need to be forwarned that the next growth area for the legal system will be prosecutions of publicans for not protecting staff from the dangers of ETS.Since April 27 cases have been taken on – this is the start of a tidal wave – in my view.

    The industry, through the various trade bodies is looking for a voluntary ban with 80% of premises having smoke free areas by 2007.
    Having attended the conference I am of the clear view that far too many of us could be fighting legal battles by then, and perhaps we will be preferring a total national ban.

    We need to take a very close look at what is happening elsewhere and learn from their experiences.The clearest message from this conference is that on health and legal grounds a ban is an absolute must and an absolute certainty.
    That frightens us and requires us to change will, ultimately, be irrelevant.

    I would strongly recommend that every trade body and industry representative invites some of the speakers from this conference, or workshop.
    At least that way acknowledge of the dangers of ETS and to our livelihoods and businesses will be more widely available.”

    Page 7


    Thompson’s Solicitors Smoking Workplace Hotline

    “Since the last political bulletin, ASH and Thompsons have launched their new hotline through a leaflet called “secondhand smoker?”
    It is aimed at people who don’t smoke themselves but are suffering from ill health due to exposure from tobacco smoke pollution at work.
    Thompsons and ASH have been very pleased at the response so far.”
    http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_405.pdf

    Massive Pub Company calls in the administrators
    28 January, 2008

    “Massive Pub Company, the London-based multiple operator, has put 34 of its 46 sites into administration.

    It is understood the pub operator called in accountants Grant Thornton after the collapse of a proposed deal to sell a number of its sites to Sports Cafe, after it too went into administration earlier this month.

    Tough trading conditions have not helped Massive’s cause, a source close the company said.

    The source added that such a highly operationally geared company as Massive meant that when there was a downturn in trading the business was hit hard.”
    http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storyCode=58420

  7. Rose says:

    No loss of business?

    Hazards magazine
    May 2003

    Smoke screen

    “A new analysis of 97 studies in eight countries on the impact of smoking bans on the hospitality industry showed that the most rigorous and independent studies found no negative impact on business.”

    “The 2003 study in the journal Tobacco Control confirmed the positive impact of smoking bans on hospitality venues”

    But if you look at the studies they are not smoking bans at all, they are only smoke free areas and the “independant” studies are from ASH and it’s cohorts.

    Of course there was no loss of business, in my experience at the monthly meeting in the local pub, everyone crushed into the smoking room and had to sit on each others laps, leaving the vast non-smoking room completely empty.

    People didn’t want to be segregated “for their own good” and acted accordingly.

    For example –

    Study 55
    “Author and year published: Yorkshire ASH, 2001
    Reference: Yorkshire Ash. Popularity and impact on trade of smoke-free accommodation in the hospitality trade in Yorkshire; 2001.
    Type of policy examined: Smoke-free restaurants and bars
    Location: Yorkshire, UK
    Publisher: Report by Yorkshire Ash Funding source indicated: Yorkshire Ash
    Nature of relationship with tobacco industry: Funding source other than tobacco industry
    Description: Proprietor estimates of effect on sales
    Findings: Almost 2/3 (65 per cent) of respondents thought trade had increased as a result of the no-smoking policy, 29 per cent thought trade had increased ‘a lot’. Only 5 per cent thought trade had decreased “a little”, none thought it had decreased by ‘a lot’. Eighteen out of 28 pubs (64 per cent) thought trade had increased as a result of providing smoke-free areas. None thought it had decreased.

    “The 2002 Tobacco Control paper concludes: “Through the myth of lost profits, the tobacco industry has fooled the hospitality industry into embracing expensive ventilation equipment, while in reality 100 per cent smoke-free laws have been shown to have no effect on business revenues, or even to improve them.”
    http://www.hazards.org/smoking/smokescreen.htm

    This seems to be the one.

    Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry

    M Scollo, A Lal, A Hyland, and S Glantz

    VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759095/

  8. Junican says:

    A bit late with this, but I remember my closest local having a no-smoking room, although it was not an enclosed room nut still a part of the pub. There was a sign up. Nobody ever used it and eventually the sign disappeared. What was the point of having a separate room for non-smokers if non-smokers preferred to be with smokers?

  9. mark says:

    Second hand smoke is the excuse for banning smoking. My feeling is that law has not been introduced to protect people from shs and it so called effects; this is in fact one huge exaggeration . For a person in reasonable health, it could take possibly several decades of exposure to smoke filled environments without adequate ventilation, to potentially cause any serious health problem if at all. The ban means that smokers are no longer socially accepted by society.
    It means in reality that smokers can’t be social, as we are no longer accommodated anywhere inside.
    It is disproportionate diktat, a control measure. If pubs reverted back to allowing smoking more than fifty percent would do so as. has happened in The Netherlands. The public prefer restrictions to a total indoor ban.
    The ban is seriously crippling the pub trade. Why can’t it stand up for its self and its customers?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s