Viability of Licensed Premises Post Smoking Ban

[BigMouth]

There was a lot of talk when the smoking ban was due to come into force in Scotland about the number of licensed premises that would go out of business in Shetland due to the ban.

 

How many actually went out of business in the end?

[Ghostrider]

I have no idea, and maybe it's as much a case of who will yet go out of business due to the longer term effects, than who already has. A fairer question at this stage, IMHO, would be how many licensed premises have experienced a downturn in turnover since the ban was introduced, and/or have been forced to introduce additional products/services in to their business and/or push existing product lines much harder than previously to try and make up any shortfall they were experiencing. By the nature of most licensed premises most products/services which could potentially be viable as "add ons" or the pre-existing ones they could push harder, are arguably as "damaging" in there own ways to excessive users, so it's difficult to see that as anything other than a "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" exercise.

 

*If* smokers who voted with their feet and have never darkened a pub door since the ban came in have been immediately replaced by non-smokers who prior voted with their feet and stayed away when it was a smoking establishment, and those non-smokers make an equal or greater alcohol spend, then fine, for the business owner at least. But, where the fairness in that? The previous status quo saw one section of the population constructively excluded due to their not wishing to partake of alcohol in a smoky atmosphere, the current status quo sees the section who have no interest in partaking of alcohol unless they can enjoy a smoke along with it. It's gained nothing, just traded the wishes of one population sub-group for that of another.

 

Free for alls and blanket bans always leave someone getting the short straw, when is a grain of common sense going to prevail, what on earth was wrong with smoking and non smoking pubs, or smoking and non smoking seperate bars within one pub? It might not have pleased all of the people all of the time, but it certainly would have pleased the maximum possible number of pub customers at any one time. This 'Nanny-state' b/s has gotten to the stage these days of just taking the piss.

[BigMouth]

Extending into other markets has to be applauded. Pubs found success by selling food in the past. Some of those that held onto not sellingfood in the past have now realised that is the way to get folk through the door.

 

I hear Flints does a mean Chinese now.

 

I just got out of the habit of going to the pub when I had to leave half way through the night because of my asthma being unable to handle the smoke. I haven't really got into the habit of going back, but the food might entice me

 

Hopefully it has improved the health of the nation. More important than anything else IMHO.

[breeksy]

I hear Flints does a mean Chinese now.

 

Indeed they do - went for this last night - bought the meal for two - and it did the four of us with enough leftovers for todays lunch as well!

 

Damn good it was too.

[Njugle]

Though not a smoker, i am quite partial to going to the door with friends who go for a fag, there's always good banter and it's a great way of randomly meeting people.

I enjoy the cleaner air a lot although, as has been said elsewhere, the stink of toilet which was previously masked is really not good. They should have a Febreeze* mist across the doorways.

On the whole it hasn't affected my pub usage whatsoever.

 

 

*other odour neutralizers may also apply.

[Ghostrider]

^^^ Ahem, we smokers, have tolerated that particular stink now for a very long time. At least to the non-smoker the "filthy habit" we smokers possess all but masked out the sickly "sweet 'n' sour' stench of rank alcoholic drain off. No such luck for us smokers though, being as we are totally oblivious to the smell of tobacco smoke, all we have ever smelled in pub toliets is the stink of sour beer, which got steadily ranker as the evening progressed.

 

Hopefully it has improved the health of the nation. More important than anything else IMHO.

 

Hopefully it has, and anything that does it to be lauded, in principle at least. However *if* licensed premises have found the need to introduce food and/or push existing products harder due to a downturn in business, and all it achieves is to make people munch food off and on all evening with their beer, instead of a smoke, the resulting long term obesity is likely to be as damaging as smoking. Likewise if pubs put the harder sell on alcohol the probable additional consumption is likely to cause a similar nil net gain to health.

 

Concerning the initial question, the North Star and Mooney's have both closed since the ban was introduced. I'm not for one second trying to insinuate that they did so as a direct result of the ban, I expect that decision was based on the collective of numerous factors, but *if* their bar take had dropped since the ban came in, it certainly would have been one of those factors, and one which contributed towards the management reaching the decision they did.

[BigMouth]

 

Hopefully it has improved the health of the nation. More important than anything else IMHO.

 

Hopefully it has, and anything that does it to be lauded, in principle at least. However *if* licensed premises have found the need to introduce food and/or push existing products harder due to a downturn in business, and all it achieves is to make people munch food off and on all evening with their beer, instead of a smoke, the resulting long term obesity is likely to be as damaging as smoking. Likewise if pubs put the harder sell on alcohol the probable additional consumption is likely to cause a similar nil net gain to health.

 

I think that we have the obesity already, but I would be a supporter of less alcohol in pubs! It's a shame that people can't resist wedging food into their faces. Perhaps a picture of a starving child on every Pot Noodle pot

[Medziotojas]

I think the question to ask here is how many bars/restaurants have had to downsize since the smoking ban was introduced? I don't know how things stand in Shetland now, but that has certainly been the case over here.

[BigMouth]

I think the question to ask here is how many bars/restaurants have had to downsize since the smoking ban was introduced? I don't know how things stand in Shetland now, but that has certainly been the case over here.

 

If it improves the health of the nation it can only be a good thing. Saving lives, and the rest of us money, and allowing others to live a better life should be applauded surely?

[Ghostrider]

I think the question to ask here is how many bars/restaurants have had to downsize since the smoking ban was introduced? I don't know how things stand in Shetland now, but that has certainly been the case over here.

 

If it improves the health of the nation it can only be a good thing. Saving lives, and the rest of us money, and allowing others to live a better life should be applauded surely?

 

In principle, definitely, "yes". But, is it within a government's remit to legislate to force such changes in to effect, isn't that an infringement of human rights and freedom of choice? A Communistic or Facist principle, of "you will only do to yourself what we tell you you can".

 

Certainly the government were entitled, IMHO at least, to legislate for no smoking public buildings up to a point, but it was when they included entertainment and recreational facilities of any sort in their entirity that thay crossed the line they had no business crossing.

 

Public buildings that everyone find themselves in, regardless of whether they want to or not, fine and well, include all of those. But pubs and suchlike, where it is totally a matter of personal choice whether a person ever enters one or not, and the purpose of which is purely for entertainment and pleasure, the government had no business interfering with the choices of the individual. By all means legislate that any and all pubs and suchlike have to provide an area with a smoke free enviornment as an integral part of the business before the business is permitted to trade, if that's the level of state nannyism the public feels is necessary, but let both the establishment owners make the most of their business they can, and their current, former and potential future customers experience the kind of service they wish to. Where's the harm after all? Non-smokers will have their clean air enviornment, and smokers, and those who don't give a damn what the air is like will have their's, and the business will have more customers, everyone wins.

 

As I've said before I only enjoy a drink when I can have a smoke along with it, with any entertainment establishment I am relegated to only getting what I enjoy while standing on the doorstep. Not my idea of fun in the first place, plus in the town I'd be arrested for drinking there too, and few country pubs are in locations the weather is condusive to doorstep drinking very many days of the year anyway, so in effect if I want to enjoy a drink I am left with either doing so at a friend's house, or in my own. The former, in a country area is likely to involve a long walk, mostly along unlit roads, or then risk getting bagged, neither appeals. That leaves the latter, which statistically has long been held up as high risk behaviour in creating alcoholics. So, it seems the net benefit to my health from the government's smoking ban legislation is that they are twisting my arm to kill myself by frying my gut, liver and brain on alcohol instead of kippering my lungs with nicotine.

 

I'll get round to thanking them for that "help"....ummmm....just as soon as I find the perspective that allows me to comprehend it as "help".

[BigMouth]

I speak as an ex-smoker, so I have been on both sides of the fence.

 

Smoking is bad for you and for the people around you. It is no longer a secret. It costs the health of the nation horrendously and kills people prematurely. It bungs up hospital beds and fills doctors waiting rooms. If the government made a profit out of the tax on smoking they would be encouraging us all to do it. It isn't hence why NRT therapies are free. This is one of those times when the government are trying to save us from ourselves and I support them.

 

I wish I had given up before I wrecked my lungs, and wish my Dad had given up long before he contracted the lung cancer that slowly killed him.

[Fjool]

This is one of those times when the government are trying to save us from ourselves

I do not agree that it is the government's place to save us from ourselves. In the case of smoking it affects others, so it's slightly different.

 

Broadly speaking, I feel that it should probably be up to each establishment to decide on smoking and non-smoking policies; just as it is up to each person as to which type of establishment they visit.

 

As usual, however, nothing is quite so simple.

 

/ex-smoker

 

 

Have heard rumours that some places are doing better, others doing worse. I guess it will take a while longer before the true picture is clear.

[BigMouth]

Have heard rumours that some places are doing better, others doing worse. I guess it will take a while longer before the true picture is clear.

 

With more non-smokers than smokers, I can't see how they will fail to be doing better in the long run. The greatest problem is the seedy and drab image that they have had for so long. Once they have got rid of that then they will have people beating the doors down.

 

My feeling is that they have done very well recently with the lengthening of opening hours.

[Fjool]

With more non-smokers than smokers, I can't see how they will fail to be doing better in the long run.

This is my overall guess too. Especially for environments where you can take children for a meal, etc.

 

Things are still in turmoil since the current clientèle have been somewhat alienated, yet the new market has perhaps not yet fully emerged.

[Ghostrider]

It bungs up hospital beds and fills doctors waiting rooms.

 

Which smokers pay for through a very hefty tax, why shouldn't they get the service they have paid for? A pack of 20 typically costs over £5.00, well over £3.00 of that is tax, not every smoker ends up in hospital because of smoking, and your average 20/day over 40+ years smoker is giving the government well in excess of £44,000 current value in that time. I don't buy it that smokers are putting the NHS in the red with those kinds of figures at stake.

 

If the government made a profit out of the tax on smoking they would be encouraging us all to do it. It isn't hence why NRT therapies are free.

 

I suspect it's not quite so simple as that. A government of the type we have is not only profit driven, they're also considering what lip service they can offer to what bandwagon to ensure re-election. If their analysts advise them that a "No Smoking" ticket is a vote winner, they'll be aboard it, the prostitution of principles, the surgical removal of both integrity and the ability to comprehend hypocracy almost always seems to precede political progress.

 

This is one of those times when the government are trying to save us from ourselves and I support them.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I for one do not recall giving the government a mandate to save me from anything, least of all myself, in fact I object in the strongest possible terms to their attempts to save me from me, I am quite happy doing whatever, with and to me I feel like.