Brighton beach smoking ban report delayed after flood of consultation responses

Posted On 14 Oct 2015 at 12:21 pm

So many people responded to a consultation on a proposed smoking ban on Brighton and Hove’s beaches and parks that a report into what they said has been put back two months.

butts on pebblesMore than 1,500 people took part in the consultation, which asked people what they thought about a voluntary smoking ban in a range of public outdoor spaces, including beaches, parks and even pavements outside pubs and restaurants.

The online consultation closed at midnight last night, and a report will now go to the city council’s health and wellbeing board in February.

A council spokeswoman said: The public smoking consultation closed at midnight and more than 1,500 have made their voice heard.

“We expect a paper to go the Health and Wellbeing Board in February – not as originally planned in December due to the wealth of responses and interest in this consultation.”

One of those responding was the pro-smoker pressure group Forest, who wrote: “Not everyone visits the city for the candy floss and the ‘Kiss Me Quick’ hats.

“Many of us visit Brighton, or used to, because we enjoyed the feeling that here was a city that embraced a diverse range of lifestyles and didn’t judge people.

“Ban smoking in outdoor public spaces and Brighton will destroy any lingering link it has to its proud bohemian tradition. Instead it will be seen as one of the most puritanical cities in the UK, a model for nanny statists the length and breadth of the country. Is that how councillors want Brighton to be seen?”

  1. Junican Reply

    Shouldn’t the councillors just scrap the plans? There is no health consequence to others from people enjoying tobacco in the open air, so what is their reasoning? Is it a litter problem? But there are already laws against litter. Would litter in the form of sweet packets or drinks cans justify a ban on eating and drinking on beaches? How much would it cost to have rangers on the beaches looking for smokers? Is it that they think that smoking does not look nice? Grossly fat people in bikinis do not look nice. Or is it that some councillors are just bullies? The last sound most likely to me.

    • John Watson Reply

      Junican fails to disclose that he’s a pro-smoking activist from Bolton. Google him to see just how active he is.

      Bolton is a long way from Brighton, but he still thinks he can stick his oar into a local matter.

      • marx Reply

        Interesting that you describe him as a pro-smoking activist. Defending the right to do something is not the same as doing it.
        Maybe you are not a Muslim but still defend the right for people to worship their own way. If so, does that make you a pro-Muslim activist?

      • marx Reply

        Defending the right is not the same as being a pro-smoking activist.
        If you wer.e to defend the right of people to worship in mosques would that make you a pro-muslim activist?

  2. Rob Reply

    “no health consequence to others from people enjoying tobacco in the open air” – have you never heard of passive smoking and the damage it does Junican. And yes, it is a litter problem, a huge and costly one

  3. Kevin Reply

    “have you never heard of passive smoking and the damage it does Junican. And yes, it is a litter problem, a huge and costly one”

    There is NO hard and firm evidence that that there is any health risks due to outdoor “passive smoking”.
    Chewing gum, food wrappers, drinks cans and bottles are also costly litter problemsl. Shall we ban people from eating, drinking and chewing gum on the beach as well?

    • marx Reply

      Yes indeed the nasty one being broken glass that can shred feet, paws etc.

  4. marx Reply

    Power corrupts as Marx says. Combine the local government petty power with the evangelical zeal of people who are convinced that hey know best for everybody and indeed it is their duty to Force behaviour change against our will

  5. izzy Reply

    to john watson
    ‘pro-smoking activist’ is the wrong term for somebody who sticks up for the rights of somebody else

    that does not make them a pro activist just enlightened and liberal rather than Draconian

  6. grant Reply

    Smokers seem to be the popular victims here a bit

  7. lorne Reply

    If the argument is about health there is insufficient evidence to support the claim of outdoor smoking negative effects
    If the argument is about litter then other litter droppers, dog foulers etc. should be meted out the same treatment
    If the argument is about safety then equal billing should be given to people leaving broken glass, syringes etc. which are even more dangerous
    But the argument is about petty power, control and health nannies

  8. bob a job Reply

    i find it absolutely astonishing that this godawful council see fit to waste MY tax and their precious resources on this tosh. have we not got more important things to worry about, seriously? it’s not even a ban – it will be ‘voluntary’, for goodness sakes give yourselves a slap round the face BHCC and get your priorities straight. this is the worst council whose district i have ever had the misfortune to live in. absolutely bonkers!

Leave a Reply


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