MortiBlog

The smoking ban put into effect by the UK government this year has been a source of annoyance for me. I admit I enjoy the occasional smoke, not all the time but sometimes when I’m out. Yes, smoking indoors was nice, but to be honest I like the outside and for me personally having to encourage a few friends to sit outside rather than inside when I go to the pub is not a big deal. A bit annoying but not something worth making a big blog post about. I don’t say these things and make the proposal I make here for my own needs, although it would be kind of nice.

For some people however, the smoking ban is a source of anguish rather than simply annoyance. The Bury Times reported that a pub landlord has been forced out of business since the smoking ban and this is just one example of many across the country. Some pubs are seeing increased profits as the non-smokers come out more often but while some businesses are doing better, many hard working people are losing their jobs and their livelihood to this new piece of government legislation.

Also, on the aforementioned link, notice that the poll on the page indicates only 28.5% of people actually want the smoking ban. I realise this is only a poll on a website but surely if the ban was as universally desired as the government suggests then the number wouldn’t be quite that small. So why is this ban in place? In fact, Mike Oldfield hates it enough to leave the country entirely.

The fact is that, up to this point, the anti-smoking campaigners have been louder. Organisations such as ASH have lobbied very loudly for this, fake statistics have been created (fact is, passive smoking is a bother but no death has been conclusively linked with it, the statistics that say thousands die from it have been mostly fabricated) and the government has responded.

Okay, fair enough that there is some disagreement on whether or not passive smoking does kill people and it’s worth protecting the health of the nation by restricting smoking in public places in case it does. It’s a pollutant and while it hasn’t been proven to kill it’s probably not very good for you and if you’re inhaling second-hand smoke it’s probably not your choice to do so. What bothers me is that while it is up to the government to take steps to look after publc health and safety it is not up to them to restrict our personal freedom as much as they have done with the smoking ban. The government has far overstepped the mark on this one, far reducing our civil liberties beyond what is necessary.

The smoking ban has made the air in our country cleaner and it will make people in our country healthier, no doubt about it. However, if you’re a pub landlord who caters to smokers then you don’t want to have to ban smoking in your pub and force your clients out into the cold. You also don’t want to have to pay money to put up mandatory non-smoking signs when you’re already going out of business due to the ban. Similarly as a regular patron of pubs (although not a heavy drinker myself) I would like the freedom to choose a smoking pub and decide for myself whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits. I don’t see a government telling me whether I can or I can’t skydive, it’s up to me to weigh the benefits and the risks, smoking should be the same. Or, a more relevant example, no government agent has come to me and said I should cut back on the chocolate cakes.

So, what can we do? Cleaner air and better health is good, the reducing of our freedom and closing of businesses is not. What we need is some sort of middle ground that keeps the health of the nation as a primary concern while still allowing certain members of society the freedoms they used to have to do something they enjoy and keeping certain businesses from closing. The people who want to smoke or want to allow smoking in their establishments are, to my knowledge, a minority group but why not meet their needs as well as the needs of everyone else?

So my proposal is this. By issuing a small number of smoking licenses to each local council (depending on how large the area, perhaps) that pubs/restaurants/clubs/venues/etc can apply for it means that the smokers have somewhere to go, some businesses that would close down have another choice that will allow them to stay open and those who abhor smoke can still go to the majority of pubs which will remain non-smoking. This passes the choice from the wider government down to the individual landlords in partnership with local councils which, in turn, gives more freedom of choice to the consumer.

It sounds so perfect. The positives of the smoking ban remain (cleaner air, health improvements, non-smokers can enjoy an evening without smelling of smoke) while removing the negatives (pub closures, smokers being forced outside where there is pneumonia, restriction of personal freedoms and liberties). I’ve created a petition for it, all we need to do is sign it and make the government realise that this is worthwhile and very workable proposal. They can even charge for the smoking licenses so as not to cost too much in taxes, if a pub landlord sees that they need to obtain a license in order to stay in business then they will gladly pay for it rather than go out of business entirely.

Before the smoking ban there were far too few non-smoking pubs, even as a smoker I thought that. I am all in favour of people being able to spend an evening in a pub or club and not smelling of smoke. However, a small number of pubs do face loss of profits or closing completely and it is for that small number of pubs and their small number of clientelle that we should allow a limited number of smoking licenses. Licenses should be accompanied by signs that landlords can post on their doors to warn/inform consumers that it is a smoking establishment so that people can still look after their health in a well-informed fashion as they see fit rather than the government babysitting everyone. This could even create an entirely new business in the form of smokers clubs making for more entertainment potential and more money going into local business ventures.

Anyway, sign the petition. It’s good for everyone, not just for you.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/smokinglicenses/

Pass the link around to… well, everyone. Feel free to link people to this post as well.

If you have any comments to make, go for it. I have told this idea to many people and have yet to hear anyone tell me it wouldn’t work or that it would be a bad idea in the first place. I’m open to criticism and will discuss in an open and friendly fashion why I think this is a good idea.

Planet Lazer and Studio 41 in Canterbury are coming under some danger at the moment, basically a planning application has been made to the council to tear it down and build a housing development on top of it. A phone call to a very helpful man at Planet Lazer revealed to me a couple of interesting facts about this:

• The housing will allegedly not be cheap first-come sort of housing (which Canterbury is more in need of), it will be more expensive developments like others already in progress in the city.
• Those who own Planet Lazer and Studio 41 are protesting the plans and have petitions going. They are also encouraging people to email the council and make their views known if they don’t want 41 St George’s Place torn down for another overpriced housing estate.
• Planet Lazer and Studio 41 management believe that the only people who will benefit from this housing development are the people developing it.

So yes, I think now is the time for us young Canterbury residents to become outraged. I’m not a huge fan of Studio 41 myself but I know that there are already limited places to go in Canterbury to go for an evening clubbing and I wouldn’t support it being torn down. Also, Planet Lazer is entirely unique in Canterbury and one of the few things that teenagers and young adults can do besides either see a movie or sit and eat/drink; the availability of fun, healthy and socially constructive activities available to teenagers in the area is already limited enough without Planet Lazer having to go.

What I’m doing is suggesting to everyone that you drop the council an email over the next two days (comments will not be considered after that time, apparently) and say, in a useful and constructive manner but still in your own words, that you oppose the plans and think it will be a detriment to Canterbury and its residents. Once I’ve emailed them I will modify my email to form a “stock email” which will sit in this post, although I’d suggest you only use it if you really can’t be bothered to write your own.

So email development.control@canterbury.gov.uk quoting REF: CA/06/00395/CAN with your comments, perhaps also email savetheplanet@planetlazer.co.uk to let them know they have your support but that’s not quite so useful. Those wishing to read the plans can either look here or go to the council’s website and search for CA//06/00395. I would also encourage everyone with a website, blog, or just a big email list of contacts in Canterbury to spread the word about this. We’re saving a good and useful local business and saving the city from the terror that can be brought on by thousands more bored teenagers and students.

Please comment on my blog if you wish to discuss this, it supports nested comments now for better arguing.

Thanks for reading. Let’s save Planet Lazer (and also Studio 41).

EDIT: This is the letter I sent to the council. I don’t claim to be perfect at writing letters but perhaps it’ll inspire you in composing your own. It doesn’t need to be as long, just let them know your objections. Thanks.