Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 8th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sly smokers spark more pub inspections



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 06 July 2008
PLANS to scale down smoking inspectors are to be scrapped after new research suggested many pub customers are lighting up during lock-ins.
Health officials had hoped that the ban on smoking in pubs and clubs would become self-policing.

The study on the effectiveness of the ban – introduced in Scotland in March 2006 – was carried out by a team of academics from Stirling, Strathclyde
and Central Lancashire universities. Over 18 months, they sent secret observers to eight pubs to check whether drinkers and staff were keeping to the law.

Three pubs were in deprived urban areas, three were in affluent urban areas and two were in poorly-off rural areas.

The study found:

&149 Lock-ins for smokers going on in both the rural pubs and in one of the deprived urban bars;

&149 One of the rural bars allowing smoking after early closing;

&149 One of the rural pubs, and one each of the other categories of allowed smoking before the official opening time;

• Staff smoking in a rural bar and a deprived urban one.

The study also found a case of a bar allowing older customers to light up in a cellar when it was raining.

But it showed that the smoking ban was enforced during peak hours when managers feared being caught out.

Douglas Eadie, of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research at Stirling University, led the study. He said: "This does make clear that there is a small proportion of premises which are allowing their locals to smoke."

Sally Haw, of NHS Health Scotland, said: "In the immediate aftermath of the smoking ban there were a large number of inspections, and that has been scaled down somewhat to a lower frequency as people have become used to the change in the law. It was hoped that it would become effectively self-policing and inspections might not be needed. But it's clear from this that we need to maintain inspections at their current level."

A spokesman for Glasgow City Council said the authority had no plans to scale back enforcement of smoke-free premises, which was felt to have "an important role in the successful implementation of the legislation".

Gordon Greenhill, head of community safety at Edinburgh City Council, said: "Breaches are few and far between due to the overwhelming support for the legislation in the city. However, we continue to remain vigilant and anyone suspecting a possible breach is urged to contact us."

Neil Rafferty, the spokesman for smokers' lobby group Forest, said: "The fact that there are lock-ins just shows how stupid and unfair this law is. If people are locking the doors to have a smoke then they are exercising freedom of will.

"People know the dangers of smoking and should be left to choose for themselves."

Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said: "Although it is disappointing that there were some instances of non-compliance with the smoking ban in this particular study, we are very pleased that levels of compliance remain very high throughout Scotland."

A spokeswoman for the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities said: "Councils are determined to ensure that the anti-smoking legislation is appropriately enforced."





The full article contains 533 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 July 2008 9:46 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 06/07/2008 01:30:33

"Over 18 months, they sent secret observers"

Who's That!,?

Who's Who!,?

"Them hiding Behind the,..'Lamp-Post',!

D'oh! Don't you Know,?

"NO"!

Its the 'Smoking Wardens' Secret Service!

"Lets 'Smoke Them Out"!

............

Ludicrous,?

It Certainly IS!
2

harleyrider1978,

eastend 06/07/2008 01:58:44
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins
Town can't ban smoking, attorney says
By Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, June 26, 2008

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jun/26/to... LINK TO THIS STORY WAS DELETED we wonder why but I have retained the original story.


COLUMBIA — An attorney for Bert's Bar argued Wednesday before the state Supreme Court that the town of Sullivan's Island does not have the authority to ban smoking in the workplace.

Bert's Bar attorney Paul Dominick said that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, through the state Department of Labor, regulates workplace smoking.

Justice Donald Beatty questioned Dominick's assertion.

"I don't tend to agree that what you say is the case," Beatty told Dominick. "So you're saying we were wrong when we ruled on the Greenville issue?"

Justice James Moore noted there is no state or OSHA regulation that relates to smoking.

"What you're wanting is for this court to be the first court to implement this as far as OSHA is concerned," Moore said. "If we were to agree with you, then we would have to overturn Foothills (the Greenville case)."

Frances Cantwell, representing the town, said a Supreme Court ruling in March that upheld Greenville's smoking ban validates the Sullivan's Island ordinance. Cantwell said the ordinance does not conflict with the state's Clean Indoor Air Act and compared the town ordinance with Charleston's 2 a.m. closing time for bars. Cantwell said all the issues were decided when the court issued its ruling upholding the Greenville smoking ban.

"Sullivan's Island does not punish any conduct that the state regulates," Cantwell said.

The court will issue a written opinion but has not said when it will do so.

Bert's Bar is closed. The owners said part of the reason for closing the longtime island establishment was lost business because of the smoking ban.

The attorney's claim actually has more validity than
3

harleyrider1978,

westend 06/07/2008 01:59:40
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:


http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com


All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.



Listen and listen good, these bans were never about health. That story about health has been used for well over 100 years. The last time prohibition came down was 1919. The last forty years prior 1919 saw the same lambasted health studies back then on alchohol and tobacco. There is nothing new here going on except the date is changed and the nannies promoting it. The cause is still in effect of the prohibitionists arm. People will always have a certain amount of the ”I WANT TO CONTROL YOU” attitude.

We here in america have become seduced by the constant barrage of daily doses of health study propaganda just like it was dished out in the 40 years running up to 1919…..Our great granparents were seduced by the propaganda artists back then either thru church meetings on sunday morning or thru the newspaper in the evening. Its just today we get it 24-7 from cable networks and newspapers and internet…..It takes the strongest of will of mind and body to OVERCOME such seducing propaganda……They have created a mindset in the public perception that tobacco is evil and peopel using it are the scum of the earth…….

the liberal progressives are the ones who are behind the bans and the psudo-science that pushes it…..the craddle to grave crowd.They are also responsible for the global warming hoax being shoved down ever
4

harleyrider1978,

southside 06/07/2008 02:01:01
y memeber of societies throats……..If you dont pull the string to their nanny mentality your bad motuthed and astrocized as a nay sayer a non-believer……..well I am here to tell you keeping your mind in a world full of propaganda day in and day out has its effects on the population…….

we can call it politically correct hatred towards smokers, people of obesity or just being poor….Trust me when I tell you this crowd of antis is the worse lot of folks to come along in a hundred years.there worse that the VICTORIANS…….the hatred these people hold for a smoker is DEATH……….they dont care about law or rights or freedom when it comes to their AGENDA……..nobody is safe from their hatred………Anyway the outdoor bans and everything else from global warming to second hand smoke are all made-up moral dilemmas to scare people into voting for these fools…….

Remember in the public perception it takes only 6 weeks of drilled propaganda to make a lie the truth and these folks have had 40 years to do it. The last time this group used 40 years to brainwash society we got a constitutional amendment that started prohibition and it wasnt just alchohol, it was tobacco being prohibitied too……..14 states outlawed or prohibitied tobacco use during the volstead act…..prohibition.
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 06/07/2008 02:37:36

harleyrider1978 posts ~2-4,

Well-Said! you said all in your comments!

Conditioning and Brainwashing!

Why don't they go,...'All-The-Way', and....

Just put 'Drugs' in our,..'Water Supply' and Be Done With It,? (to condition us all)

Believe you Me, ..'Its On The Cards'!!!
6

DeniseX,

06/07/2008 10:23:34
I thought that the smoking ban was introduced to protect people from the 'harm' of second hand smoke, which has never been proven conclusively. If there is a lock-in, everybody would know that there would be smoking going on and anybody fearing for their health would not enter the pub.
7

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 06/07/2008 12:48:12
Charles Linskaill

Good morning, sir, and also to you DYW.

Thank you for you kind reply to my posting with regard to your 10 years(!) of trying to have a baby or babies.

If smokers want to smoke and kill themselves and have an agonising death, then let them do it in their own homes so that those of us who have NEVER smoked don't get lung cancer from vile second-hand smoke.

Smokers are the most arrogant and self-serving numpties on the planet.

A pox on all their houses!
8

Antony Henstock,

Blackpool 06/07/2008 13:02:10
Smoke lock-ins??

Older people smoking in cellars because its raining??

Bar staff smoking when the pub is shut??

Is this in Britain???? You know, BRITAIN, a FREE counry?????

9

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 06/07/2008 15:08:02
The only reason these inspections are needed is because of a few ignorant and arrogant individuals who think that the law doesn't apply to them. With freedom comes responsibility and that includes not polluting the air people breathe with carcinogenic cigarette smoke. The law was passed because of the overwhelming evidence of harm and nothing is going to change that, simply because there are more non-smokers than smokers, a ratio which will only increase as smokers continue to kill themselves.
10

DeniseX,

06/07/2008 15:29:57
A nice Canadian 'lady' has said to me, on a few occasions, that I stink when I've come back inside from a smoke. Last night I went to a party at my local club and that nice 'lady' had the cheek to sit outside among us stinking smokers. Some Canadians can be very rude and hypocritical.
11

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 06/07/2008 17:19:00
Oi Scotsman, can a man no read a couple of articles and some comments without being timed out and having to log in everytime he does? Geezzz.

Anyway, the anti smoking brigade just does not like the fact that people smoke. The blanket ban would suggest that freedom of choice would have led to their favourite bars being smoking bars.

Well, I hope all those sanctimonious tw@ts enjoy seeing their taxes go up to compensate for the lack of revenue to the Exchequer when they finally administer their coup de grace on smokers.

Weanwhile I shall continue to travel abroad to purchase mine and enjoy a fag and a pint as I do so.
12

Antony Henstock,

Blackpool 06/07/2008 19:11:02
Dear David Harrington - Comment #9

You say;

The only reason these inspections are needed is because of a few ignorant and arrogant individuals who think that the law doesn't apply to them. With freedom comes responsibility and that includes not polluting the air people breathe with carcinogenic cigarette smoke. The law was passed because of the overwhelming evidence of harm and nothing is going to change that, simply because there are more non-smokers than smokers, a ratio which will only increase as smokers continue to kill themselves.

David, if this is what you believe you really need to enlighten yourself to the truth, the evidence is out there on the second hand smoke issue. I would recommend a starting point at www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1
13

Chuckles,

06/07/2008 21:39:16
Shows one thing- this ban is only based on fear of fines. Very popular huh?? Proves the points made by Harleyrider pretty well.
14

queenmoll,

06/07/2008 23:20:14
'The only reason these inspections are needed is because' it's an unpopular law.
15

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 07/07/2008 00:03:27
~13,

Are you 'Boy Wonder' in disguise,?
16

mandyv,

banitland 07/07/2008 01:08:03
How many more millions will be wasted on this smoking ban experiment!

I agree harley, it was never about health, and it was obvious to all apart from the smoke-haters, smoke easies would be on the rise. This law is unjust and is based on lies and misinformation.

I have to ask myself are these the words of sane men or dictators?
Please watch the video in the link -
Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/Page/6100.html
Weyco and Banzhaf

freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike please join our forums and consider becoming a member.
17

Spanners,

07/07/2008 03:54:53
I've seen 2 reports in English regional papers where Council inspectors (the Nu Labour Gistapo) have issued only 1% to 3% of the businesses (Pubs, Clubs, Taxis, Hotels and Restaurants) they've hassled and harranged with tickets or on-the-spot fines. They call this "compliance".

I didn't realise on top of this No Labour Gistapo they also fund Secret Police snooping?

Wow this country is really moving forward isn't it?

They call it 99% compliance. I call it 99% a waste of public time and money. This is not a "success rate". This is a failure rate. Or if you've ever wondered why your Council and Government taxes have spiralled out of all control here's the reason.

A whole new troop of thought and deed police doing absolutely nothing productive except to comply with an undemocratic Law (70% of the public were against an all out ban) brought about by international creeps (pressure groups like ASH UK) who are unelected and unaccountable pressing your public representative to represent their extremist agenda.

Democracy for and by unelected minorities bullying the people (10M smokers are more than voted Nu Labour into office) with unpopular legislation funded by the people they bully. Democracy has either come full circle or has been perverted by a minority. Go figure..
18

Brian the Barbarian.,

leith 07/07/2008 22:17:06
I am 82 and was at Normandy and did a stint in Korea.

The other day there when it was pourin down, the 19 year old that passes for a barman threw out an old bit of damp cardboard for me and my guide dog to huddle under. The dog is never allowed in as they serve crisps.
So much for fighting for freedom.
19

Brian the Barbarian.,

leith 07/07/2008 22:21:52
I forgot to mention that they won't serve me inside as my hearing aid interferes with their internet connection and they say I leek on the seats which discourages breastfeeding..
20

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 08/07/2008 12:04:40
#18/19.
Has Brian considered euthanasia?
21

MarkHarrop,

Horbury Junction, West Yorks. 09/07/2008 12:59:57
Hamish Howitt - the first publican to be done under the smoking ban - is standing on a liberties and livelihoods ticket in the Glasgow East by election, 24th July.

Anybody able to give help - leafletting, petitions, donations, etc, etc can contact him direct - 07808 777612 or email - johow1@hotmail.com.

After smoking - what next?
22

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/07/2008 18:54:08
#21,MarkHarrop,Horbury Junction, West Yorks.
So, has our Shuggie found the necessary ten sponsors and £500?
Perhaps he'll have more success than in David Davis' seat, which he seems to have written off already, or is he just working through the six hundred and thirty or so seats until he strikes lucky? That might just cost £315k or so.
Anyway, July the 24th will be the first hurdle in a very long race. Anyone offering odds?
After Glasgow East, whither next?
23

Rob Simpson,

UK 11/07/2008 11:43:31
#20

Euthanasia is also illegal and the law is the law. You know that.

But you do have to wonder why millions needs to be spent on enforcement when the law is supposed to be SO popular. Perhaps someone is telling porkie pies.
24

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 11/07/2008 13:19:53
#23, Rob Simpson,UK.
On another thread, I had made it clear I didn't take Brian's #18/19 seriously, but to answer Rob's point, Brian could go to Switzerland, Thailand or the Benelux countries to legally seek his salvation.
"Millions" better spent perhaps than the billions squandered in various ways via other avenues.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.