Who should bear the cost of the smoking ban?

Question

My local pub has invested a lot of money creating an outside area where smokers (or not) can drink. They are now going to increase the prices of the beers etc to cover this. That means that the non smoking lobby have caused this increase so smokers and non smokers alike are now footing the bill. Pubs (in town) with a dedicated area will already attract a larger customer base, (and lots of people like to sit outside in the summer any way) so do you think it's right for them to pass these costs onto the customer in this way?

Answer 1

places should have the choice to make their place smoking or not, let the free market decide the government should have nothing to do with this - or anything.

Answer 2

LOL I read this on a previous post here..

Smokers- they caused the problem in the first place by polluting the pubs with their poison to the point it needed to be banned.

People shouldn't have to smell/inhale other peoples smoke in a closed in place, I as A smoker, Agree with this..However,We are polluting the pubs with our poison? hell When I drink the "poison" that the pubs are selling I smoke 5 times more! And have never seen someone runover somone because they had 1 too many cigarettes.....

Answer 3

Go to a pub that hasn't put it's prices up if it's too much for you to deal with.

Businesses eventually always pass their costs on to the customer.

In time people will stop fussing about this and just get on with their lives.

Answer 4

It's fair.

The smokers pay more and sacrifice their indoor smoking privileges, and the non smokers are paying more to NOT have to deal with ciagarretes. Then everyone can ***** and moan about the prices and be united, instead of conflict between smokers and non-smokers.

Answer 5

i do no longer think of that it would be banned. worldwide places have tried it till now and it on no account worked. whether i think of that it would be banned in public places. If human beings want to smoke then thats advantageous it incredibly is their selection. Its no longer truthful while somebody chooses to no longer smoke and are compelled to respire it in because of the fact others around want to smoke. human beings who smoke declare they have rights to smoke which they must, yet what approximately people who do no longer smoke? do no longer they have rights too? 2d hand smoking may be in simple terms as risky as smoking. additionally some human beings have ailments the place respiration in cigarette smoke will reason them harm. as an occasion, people who be stricken by allergies shouldn't breathe it in. It does not be truthful if the smoke triggers their allergies, even even with the undeniable fact that they are no longer those smoking it.

Answer 6

Well, in view of the fact that UK smokers are taxed to the eyeballs but are banned from using a legal product just about anywhere, and in view of the fact that a lot of non-smoklers appear to be the biggest collection of intolerant sanctimonious killjoys that I have met outside of the more radical Protestant churches in Ballymena, N Ireland, either the Government or the non-smoker should pay.

Pubs have to make money to survive. A lot of community pubs that do not sell food are already beginning to suffer. In my town 80% of the pubs are wet-trade only, they have lost quite a bit of trade, and there is no new trade coming in from non-smokers.

In the food-pubs, there has been some new trade, so far, however, these types are coming in for a meal, staying for one drink afterwards, and then leaving. The increased profits from the additional meals is not offsetting the loss of drink sales from the banished and vanished smokers. One food-pub has lost so much drinking trade that it has already reduced its opening hours and has had to make 10% of its staff redundant.

What is happening here (a community of 15000, NE Essex coast) is that people who would have called in to a pub in the afternoon on the way home with the shopping, for a couple of beers and a smoke, are going straight home, as are people who have finished work at 5.30pm and who used to drop in to the pub for a beer and a smoke (as they could not smoke in the workplace, even before the ban). My local corner shop sells quality bottled ales such as Marstons Pedigree, and the owner tells me that his sales of this product have increased by 25% in the last 2 weeks - mainly to smokers who used to use the local pubs, but now drink at home. ( The shopkeeper is quids-in - he sells them their smokes and now their beer as well).

I'm a qualified chef, and, in the past, I have sometimes been asked to cook in peoples homes for dinner parties. Now that people can no longer enjoy a pipe or cigar in any location after a meal, I am booked up to the end of September for this sort of work. Prior to the ban, I wasw lucky if I got one booking per month (I only work at this on Saturdays). This indicates how much trade is already being lost, only 3 weeks into the ban.

At the moment, smokers are still using the pubs and nipping out for a smoke as and when, but the talk is, come the winter, of people opening their homes as 'smoke-easys'. The idea is that we all meet at the pub, have a couple of beers, and then go to someone's home and drink there. One pal of mine has installed a dartboard, mat and oche in his cellar, is building a bar, and he has asked me advice on the best pie-warmer that can be obtained from commercial sources, and wants me to make the pies.

Seriously, this ban is a monumental c*ck-up of the highest order. I have yet to meet anyone in the flesh who is delighted with it - even the most rabid non-smokers at my place of work feel that the ban went too far. By all means, ban smoking in food premises - even smokers will agree with that, but allow food-pubs and restautrants to have a separate smoking room for consumption of coffee, brandy and cigars after the meal. As regards wet-trade only pubs, these will probably be a dying breed in our smaller towns and villages.

Answer 7

Well, "poisonally" speaking, I do not begrudge paying extra for my drinks to be able to socialize in a smoke free area. Before the recent ruling I couldn't go into a pub at all, being , as increasing numbers of us are, subject to asthma. I also dislike the stink which clings to my clothes if ever I have been subjected to a smoky atmosphere.

Answer 8

That is the way it is, everyone foots the bill. It is a pass it on philosophy. It happens all the time. If they pass a new school bond my property taxes go up. I am 65 and have no kids in school.

Answer 9

quit feeling sorry for yourselves Look at California
You can not smoke in one city now not even outside
and if you have a child you can not smoke in your car.
Most outdoor stadiums now ban and the list goes on
Soon you will have to test for smoking to get a home loan.
Unhealthy and stinky as it is ONE more freedom gone.
remember China has passed similar laws
I relish that I don't pay the taxes anymore and they loose.

Answer 10

I am glad the cost is being passed onto all of you. If people want to smoke it is their right, especially in a bar. If you don't like it stay home and invite all your non smoking friend over there. Stop whining about everything.

Answer 11

The smokers have caused the problem - let them pay for it, but to be fair the money should come from a lobby on packets of cigarettes and not from collection boxes in-house.