http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2008/03/05/319396/pub-closure-rate-rises-in-2007.html

It is also illiberal to force people to suffer from the negative externalities of other people’s actions.

That is true.

Rivers are not privately owned spaces but the negative externality of pollution effects everyone. How would they deal with that?

Dumping is prohibited because the dumpers haven’t negotiated to compensate us for the pollution they cause. Nick @50 is spot on.

Lee,

hunting animals (be they pests) for sport vs humane culling of a pest?

You’d rather killing animals be a serious affair? Not sure it makes any difference to the animals.

But the real question in all of that [a smoking room] was how hard would that be to police? A blanket ban is of course not the most ideal, but is it the most practical?

They’d be equally hard to police.

Jennie Rigg,

you’d be hard pressed to find one these days, the rates pubs are going out of business.

I read recently this was about two a week. Does that seem about right?

We HAVE got a small number of customers who come in now who didn’t before - but as they are mostly the under tens at Sunday dinner, and as they mostly cause huge amounts of mess for the price of a glass of cordial, I’d hardly say they make up for what we’ve lost.

The question about this was raised at the time, and it’s a tough one. I was happy for pubs and bars that could ensure that rooms that allow smoking were a) off the main walkways b) ventilated c) not in the location (or in any route to the location) of ammenities such as toilets, or to the bars themselves then no-one should have a problem with them operating smoking rooms. But the emphasis needed to change from pubs having non-smoking areas to pubs having smoking areas…and where they could not provide smoking areas with definition they shouldn’t be allowed to let smokers in there.

But the real question in all of that was how hard would that be to police? A blanket ban is of course not the most ideal, but is it the most practical? People go on about how there are pubs suffering because they don’t have outside space…I’d argue the same amount of pubs would suffer, and possibly suffer harder, because they didn’t have enough space or layout inside to offer the smoking areas that other pubs and bars could.

From my small insight of having worked in the industry for a few years, punter numbers were visibly declining easily since 2003, and only ever rallied when we were able to convince the book keepers (which was easier when I became one) to allow us to be a bit more liberal with our drinks offers. Anecdotal perhaps, but certainly the smoking ban was not yet introduced when I attended a trade convention, and they were talking rather sourly of the decline in sales nationally then, and the various strategies being employed to get the punters to the bar.

I prefer my “clean air” policy.

Enjoy it while it lasts, the rate pubs are failing currently you’ll be stuck with chain pubs and not much else pretty soon.

Which is part of the point—forcing all pubs to conform means we lose far too many.

Oh, hang on, does Talinn have a smoking ban? Most of the Ests I’ve met smoked…

I just hope that the huge swathes of lost tax revenue from people giving up smoking are put on something that all the evangelical non smokers LOVE - eau de sanctimony perhaps. Because SOME bugger is going to have to pay for it.

Actually, I suspect it will be drink. The next target on the list of the new puritans. Boris is just ahead of the game.

Much as the “leper-room” sounds great, I prefer my “clean air” policy.

But then I would, I guess.

My dad was a crack darts player. Still rules the local leagues. Could have turned pro, had he not got some rich chick preggers 30-yrs ago…

Would this be a gvmt funded renovation?

Just askin’.

As for your “not the typical publican” comment… you’d be hard pressed to find one these days, the rates pubs are going out of business. Still, at least people can enjoy the clean air, eh?

I don’t think so. It may work in some pubs. In the majority, I would say that this is impractical. Better to have no law or a “clean air” policy.

A great deal of trade publications tend to be the domain of the most outspoken. Trust me. I’ve written for a few.

That said, I’ll say that the majority of the people I spoke to were owners of hip clubs, and hardly the general publican. I bow to your greater exposure, but leave the rider that Nottingham’s more “trendy” establishments don’t concur with your premise.

:o)

“Publicans can’t ban individuals and they can’t make demands on customers (though they can try)”

Complete bollocks, sorry. I do not have to serve anyone if I don’t want to. Of course discrimination laws apply, but a pub is still a private building.

As an aside, would anyone here have objected to separate rooms?

2) Why does every time this come up it polarise into “I want smoking everywhere” and “smoking should never be allowed anywhere I want to go”?

There was a clear instance of market failure in the run up to the smoking ban, and the Govt decided to ban it everywhere (badly, with poorly worded and contestable legislation) rather than poke the market in a good direction.

There should have been many many more pubs that were completely non smoking than there were, and there should have been many more that only allowed smoking in limited, ventilated areas. That there weren’t was due to inertia within the industry and lack of govt impetus—they wanted (again) to ban something instead of allowing for more choice.

I want to see pubs and similar allowed to apply for licenses to allow some of their internal areas to be smoking areas. This should have a cost. Then some pubs will choose to allow smoking completely, some will allow it partially, and many more will remain non-smoking.

This would be a sensible, liberal approach. A middle ground position that allows all to be happy. Instead we have a blanket ban and a very badly hit industry.

Aaron? Read the trade press on the effects of the ban—I read a lot these days (can’t think why), and it’s overwhelmingly opposed, pubs are suffering and closing, and trade has been hit hard since the ban came in—combine that with the stupidly applied tax in the last budget and you have the “Ban Darling” campaign, which is just the start of what will be happening from what I cansee.

You have to identify who is harmed by the pollution. A specific river will go somewhere and if the people in that area are threatened, they have the right to sue for damages and, if it doesn’t cease, seize whatever is causing the pollution. Classical liberals will have no problem with that. On the other hand, if the company wants to come to some arrangement with the people living there, by paying them each a premium in return for the increased health risk, then that is fine too. So long as the arrangement is explicit and consensual and negative externalities are accounted for, it is all good. Ideally, this would be how you would deal with things like flight paths as well.