Brighton and Hove’s proposed smoking ban could also include outside pubs and restaurants

Posted On 27 Jul 2015 at 7:58 am

The proposed smoking ban in Brighton and Hove’s beaches and in parks could also be extended to the outside of pubs and restaurants.

Cigarette ends on the beachThe consultation questionnaire that was published last week includes separate questions covering the outside seating areas of both types of venue.

Any ban would not be enforceable by law. But the council is keen to find out whether the public have an appetite for further smoke-free eating and drinking.

If so, officials are likely to work with pub and restaurant owners and operators to encourage them to bring in their own extra restrictions.

Councillor Dan Yates, who chairs the Brighton and Hove Health and Wellbeing Board, said: “We wanted to see what people’s attitudes were to smoking where people are eating and drinking as we do not have any information on this.

“Currently the inside of pubs and restaurants are legally smoke-free but not outside areas.

“We would certainly not be looking at any additional compulsory smoking restrictions to business, other than the existing smoking ban.

“But depending on the results of the consultation, we may want to work with businesses to encourage smoke-free outdoor areas on a voluntary basis.”

Dozens of pubs and restaurants have created outdoor areas specifically for smokers since the introduction of the statutory smoking ban in indoor public places in 2007.

Nick Griffin, managing director of Pleisure, which runs Brighton pubs including the Great Eastern in Trafalgar Street which has several benches on the pavement outside, said the idea was “bonkers”.
He said: “Clearly the proposal hasn’t been thought through. The law of unintended consequences will take effect here.
“If one bans smoking from outside seating areas, the smoker will simply (and I hasten to add after much confrontation!) smoke in the street where they aren’t yet banned. Surely this is a worse scenario with more scope for litter, visibility from children and no greater protection for the public.
“Add to this the risk it places hospitality staff under, with much of the income coming from tourism from places where such a ban will not be present.
“It’s a bonkers idea! What is the justification for it?”

And Nick Mosley, managing director of the Brighton and Hove Food and Drink Festival, said any further smoking ban could have a “significant” effect on the city’s bars, pubs and clubs.

He said: “The vast majority of hospitality businesses – and their patrons – are responsible in enforcing the current smoking regulations in public places.

“Whilst reducing the number of people smoking, and keeping smoking away from children, is obviously desirable, I can only see this working on a venue-by-venue voluntary basis.

“Whilst restaurants are on the whole already smoke free, enforced legislation may have a significant impact on some bars, pubs and clubs in the city.”

To see the details of the Brighton and Hove City Council consultation or to take part, click here.

The consultation is due to end on Tuesday 13 October.

  1. Rostrum Reply

    In a word NO… And I’m a non-smoker…

    A ‘consultation’ is not enough for this kind of radical change..
    The council has NO mandate for it.
    If they want to bring it in the MUST ask the electorate.

  2. Gerald Wiley Reply

    It is interesting that when Labour councillor Daniel was unhappy about the Lewes Road “improvements” imposed by the righteous greens he said:

    “Sometimes we are there to give communities and residents a voice and ensure that their views are heard before decisions are taken.

    “It is right that the council uses evidence to explain itself to its own taxpayers and residents.

    “It is right that communities are not disempowered by politicians taking a patronising ‘we know best’ approach to issues that can affect thousands of residents.

    Let’s hope that he continues this way and, unlike the conceited greens, doesn’t just force this scheme through as he is now risen to the exulted position as chair of the city “Health and Wellbeing” Board.

    For instance, will implementing the ban make any difference at all, since it will not be enforced (like the feeble 20 mph zones) and they assume it will be self-policed (heaven preserve us!)?

    Whilst he is there, perhaps he should also look closely at all the money being wasted on alternative medical “quack” cures such as homeopathy being supported by the council in the name of ‘wellbeing’.

  3. Georgina Craigs Reply

    I totally agree with this. I really find it polluting and unhygienic, just like dog poo to have smoking in a public place as what is more horrible that sitting on the beach with dog ends, and wafting smoke?

    • Gerald Wiley Reply

      @Georgina – thank you for your views on the matter – however as you apparently live in Seaford, I suggest you raise your views with Seaford Town Council.

      • georgina craigs Reply

        I do live in Seaford but I do also visit Brighton regularly having lived in Beaconsfield road for 29 years I know brighton well. I stand by my views and if Seaford town council took up the same views as Brighton I would support that as well.

  4. Georgina Craigs Reply

    I also agree that to ban smoking outside pubs and restaurants will keep the pavements cleaner, clearer, and non-smokers, and children will be able to get fresh air outside cafes instead of this ambiance only being enjoyed by smokers. I also will be pleased that smokers will not be hanging around entrances making the enviroment ghastly. Smokers should stick to their own space and not invade others with this dangerous habit.

    • rudy Reply

      @georgina – what exactly is ‘their own space’

      not inside the establishment
      not outside the establishment

      what you mean is that they should stay indoors well away from you

      By the sounds of your personality MOST people will want to stay away from you, not just smokers!

    • lorne Reply

      Georgina,

      ‘non-smokers, and children’

      1 inappropriate comma after non-smokers
      2 the two groups above are not mutually exclusive

  5. jack listerio Reply

    BRIGHTONS Clean Air Quality Law.

    It is hereby ordered that all things that generate chemical releases simular in nature to tobacco smoke are hereby OUTLAWED.

    1. Automobiles and gas or diesel engines or any other contivance that emits chemcial releases. This savings equals to the public not being forced to inhale 100s of billions of cigarettes each day.

    2. All plants are outlawed as they releases tons daily of the Carcinogen ISOPRENE. Equal in volumes of Millions of cigarettes each day.

    3. Restaraunts will be outlawed from preparing any cooked foods as these release 100s of millions of equal cigarettes each day.

    4. In home cooking is also outlawed as it produces upwards of 10s of thousands of equal cigarettes inside and outside the home.

    5. Outdoor cookouts and fireworks are outlawed as they releases 100s of millions of equivalent cigarettes a day or on weekends in the yards and parks of our city.

    6. Humans are hereby outlawed from existence insode the city limits as their own human breath contains hundreds of the same chemicals as found in tobacco smoke!

    7. Nature itself is outlawed as it generates Billions of chemcial releases naturally into the atmosphere a day hense posing a threat to human life.

    8. This Clean air law becomes effective Immediately.

    9. Your preference of suicide is a personal choise,Police will write tickets and lock up any survivors after this law becomes effective. A grace period of 30 days will be in place to educate the public on its existence.

    Signed into law by the GHOSTOWN ADMINISTRATION

    The Ghost Town Administration has just learned that all these chemicals found in tobacco smoke are natural to the earth and that mankind also evolved within this filth ridden air!
    Therefore all Tobacco Control Measures are here by OUTLAWED as for being contrived JUNK SCIENCE!

  6. jack listerio Reply

    OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

    OSHA SAFE LEVELS

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  7. jack listerio Reply

    A History of Social Engineering

    by Malcolm Massey | Wednesday, 15th April 2015

    To understand how we have reached the beginnings of a trans-humanist era we must follow the roots of modern day social engineering. Such a practice has been applied for thousands of years, but it could be said that only in the last few centuries has modern man wrestled with, and understood, the finer subtleties of group manipulation on a social scale.

    If we follow the thickest branch of social engineering we will find ourselves in the year 1875 in a German town called Leipzig. During this time a relatively unheard of professor, Wilhelm Wundt, was putting together some ides and practices of psychology that would, unbeknown to him, shape the world in a way he may never have imagined. When professor Wundt created the worlds first psychological laboratory, psychology — and its study —- was not taken seriously by any reputable scientific community and was mainly the concern of philosophers who debated psychology and consciousness based upon theories and religious ideals. However, Wundt believed that the conscious mind could be broken down into constituent parts and studied, just like any other organ, and so, using a few simple practices, he set about studying the human mind by recording his subjects’ responses to basic stimuli.

    http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/history-social-engineering

    • rudy Reply

      yes Sir!

      it has been known that control is a drug

  8. jack listerio Reply

    Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    That’s fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!

    History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind………..

    Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”

Leave a Reply to Georgina Craigs Cancel reply

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.