Nothing to celebrate

Today is the 20th anniversary of the smoking ban in Scotland. I vaguely remember spending the day in Edinburgh to handle media requests but beyond that it’s a bit of a blur.

Famously, Scotland’s first minister Jack McConnell was said to be sceptical about a ban until he spent a morning in Dublin in 2004 where he was taken to three or four specially chosen pubs to discuss the effects of the smoking ban in Ireland, which had been introduced in March that year.

From that fleeting visit, he returned as an enthusiastic advocate of a comprehensive ban in Scotland. Personally, though, I think it was partly driven by a desire to get ahead of England in terms of anti-smoking legislation. (Or any legislation. Devolution has a lot of answer for.)

In terms of pubs and clubs, it was our belief – and still is – that landlords and proprietors should be allowed to choose a policy on smoking that best suits their business, and that includes a ban on smoking. The point is, it should be up to them because they know their staff and customers best, not the government.

Either way, in 2006 fewer pubs and clubs were the smoke-filled environments of yore, but I accept that Scotland was lagging behind England where the hospitality industry had spent a lot of money installing better ventilation and modern air filtration units that could remove most of the particles from environmental tobacco smoke.

As we predicted, the impact of the ban on pubs and clubs was enormous. In 2010 it was reported that hundreds of pubs in Scotland had closed since the introduction of the ban. Inner city and urban community pubs suffered most, along with working men’s clubs.

In 2016, on the tenth anniversary of the ban, it was reported that over 1200 pubs had closed in the ten years since the ban was introduced in Scotland. In other words, one fifth of the country's entire pub estate in 2006. Thousands of jobs were lost and countless social lives were ruined as a direct result because many smokers, particularly the more elderly ones, stayed at home.

In 2021 Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said: “We were told that, after the ban, there would be an influx of new customers. We said at the time that was nonsense, and it was true. At that time, 80 per cent of people who frequented a pub three to five times a week smoked. There was a massive impact on trade.”

I’m not saying the ban was the only reason for pub closures because there were other factors, but it was clearly significant, yet government and the anti-smoking industry have long been in denial about the impact of smoking bans on the hospitality industry.

In 2011, for example, Professor Linda Bauld’s review (The Impact of Smokefree Legislation in England: An Impact Review) argued that ‘Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry [my emphasis]’. But if there was ‘no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry’ why is the hospitality industry so opposed to the ban being extended to beer gardens and licenced pavement areas?

Meanwhile the narrative in Scotland this week suggests that, thanks to the ban, smoking rates in Scotland have halved since 2006. In 2011, however, researchers investigating the impact of the ban concluded that:

Quit attempts increased in the three months leading up to Scotland's smoke-free legislation, resulting in a fall in smoking prevalence. However, neither has been sustained suggesting the need for additional tobacco control measures and ongoing support.

In reality – and this is supported by smoking rates in other parts of the UK following bans in England and Wales in 2007 – workplace bans had relatively little impact on smoking rates in all three countries. Smoking prevalence did fall, slightly, but only in line with the trend before the bans were introduced.

There is little evidence of a significant fall in smoking rates until 2012, when e-cigarettes started to become popular. That, and the impact of punitive taxation on tobacco, are almost certainly the main reasons for the significant reduction in smoking rates across the UK over the last 15 years, although who knows how many people actually smoke given that many smokers buy their cigarettes and tobacco on the black market?

As for public opinion, the tobacco control industry would also have us believe that the ban was universally popular. In fact, polls conducted before smoking bans were introduced in Scotland, England and Wales found that a majority were opposed to a blanket ban on smoking in pubs. Around 30 per cent supported a complete ban, but the majority supported smoking areas or smoking rooms.

In 2016, ten years after the introduction of the smoking ban in Scotland, a poll commissioned by Forest found that a small majority (54 per cent) still supported designated and well-ventilated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs, with 40 per cent opposed to the idea.

Those figures may have narrowed in the last ten years, but I still think a substantial proportion of the pubic are fair-minded enough to support designated smoking rooms as an option to a complete ban.

Anyway, I was invited to discuss the ban on BBC Radio Scotland this morning where the main focus seemed to be, ‘Should we go further?’. I was originally asked if I could join the phone-in for the full 60 minutes but a debate about another issue (Reform Scotland leader Matthew Offord’s crude ‘joke’ about George Michael) over-ran so I was restricted to just five or six minutes of air time.

Meanwhile I am quoted, but only very briefly, on the BBC Scotland News website and only because I complained after the comments I originally supplied (at their request) were completely ignored when the report was posted late last night. (Sound familiar?) For the record, my full response read:

“The 20th anniversary of the workplace smoking ban is nothing to celebrate. The ban was a disaster for many pubs in Scotland, especially inner city bars that had no outdoor area where smokers could light up in comfort. Hundreds of pubs closed and thousands of jobs were lost as many smokers chose to stay at home.

“A comprehensive indoor smoking ban was unreasonable and unnecessarily draconian. Publicans should have been allowed to choose a policy on smoking based on customer demand.

“At the very least, they could have been given the option of providing separate, well-ventilated smoking rooms that would have kept the smoke away from non-smokers who didn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke.

“Claims that smoke-free laws have significantly benefited public health are exaggerated. The impact of secondhand smoke on non-smokers is questionable, and there is no evidence that the smoking ban had a significant impact on smoking rates.

“A far more significant factor, when smoking rates began to fall sharply from 2012, was the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes which offered smokers a reduced risk option to cigarettes.

“It’s true that most smokers adapted to the ban, but the war on smoking has gone far enough. Smoking is a legitimate habit and if adults choose to smoke that's up to them. Government has a duty to educate people about the health risks, but beyond that politicians and anti-smoking campaigners should butt out and leave people alone.”

What they belatedly added to their report this morning reads:

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' rights group Forest, campaigned against the ban 20 years ago.

He says that while most smokers have adapted to the ban, "the war on smoking has gone far enough".

“Government has a duty to educate people about the health risks, but beyond that politicians and anti-smoking campaigners should butt out,” he tells BBC Scotland News.

See: Smoking ban in Scotland's pubs was a 'PR war' - but has it saved lives? (BBC News)