Possibly a better way of saving the pub would be to restrict the sale of alcohol to pubs only? Stuart Holmes. Anti-smoking campaigner. www.ActorsSmokingFilmsTV.blogspot.com

"Possibly a better way of saving the pub would be to restrict the sale of alcohol to pubs only? Stuart Holmes. Anti-smoking campaigner. www.ActorsSmokingFilmsTV.blogspot.com"

What a load of nannified pap,
What happened to all the millions of smoke haters who
promised to pack the pubs to the rafters.
Most I know dont go out now because the pubs in my
town are either shut or dead
Anymore bans in nanny's locker
Give England a break, find another neurosis

I wish Greg and the others the best of luck. Pubs must be given back to the regular customers ASAP before many more pubs close and thousands more staff have been made unemployed.

Common sense at last. Only a handful of countries operate a draconian ban - the majority of countries throughout Europe and the world that have adopted anti-smoking measures have managed to cater for all their citizens, so keeping their hospitality industry intact, and all their citizens catered for.

If you don't like smoking, then you can choose to go to non-smoking pubs or non-smoking areas. If you smoke, then you can choose to do the opposite. If a landlord doesn't want smoking in his pub, then he doesn't allow it.

It's all very simple. It's called choice. It caters for everyone's health and safeguards the hospitality trade.

How typical that an anti-smoking campaigner's solution involves banning/restricting something - these people obviously have nothing but contempt for the idea of personal liberty.
I fully support bringing smoking back to pubs, the worst case risks never justified a complete ban.

So that is your solution then Stuart persecute more people who choose to drink at home because they are not welcome inside pubs? If the Smoking ban had not been introduced pub closures would have stayed within their normal parameters instead of climbing through the roof!

Can I ask you why you are so hell bent on destroying everything?

Would you not agree that £43million wasted on anti smoking by the NHS would be better used by paying nurses a decent wage, opening closed wards and emergency centres, buying new equipment and preventing MRSA in hospitals stupid ideas like these that will save real lives not and not 40,000 non existant paper lives?

So Mr Stuart Holmes thinks that restricting the sale of alcohol to pubs only could be a solution to the thousands of pubs that are closing does he? Anyone, that's not an anti smoking campaigner, with half a brain can see that the smoking ban has done 95% of the damage. He thinks a further restriction is the answer (forget about all the people that can't get to a pub but enjoy a little nightcap) 2 wrongs have never ever made a right. The anti smoking campaigners have now got their smoke free pubs - shame they didn't have the brains to realise that smoke free pubs meant empty pubs. There was enough evidence from countries, that had a smoking ban in place, to show that banning smoking in pubs/bars etc had a devastating effect on the hospitality industry. Perhaps they were too engrossed in their campaign to read or believe that a ban would have a down side - like everything tend to have.

Well said Babyface. The only thing I would add is to suggest a complete ban on smoking. Make cigarettes illegal like other addictive drugs. It would save the NHS millions. If smokers have not got the sense to quit then give them no alternative and everyone will be better off.

This used to be a free country, where all types of people could persue their legal activities. Bit by bit, activists are removing our freedom to choose, to satisfy their personal beliefs. In the case of smoking, their fervour and fury makes a jihad look like a Sunday School picnic!
When the smoking in the workplace directive was to be implemented, exemptions were to be made for pubs and members clubs. Thus their respective trade organisations did not object. When Labour were re-elected, they decided on a total ban, based on what is now proved to be dubious information. Had the original promise been kept, then thousands of peole would have kept their jobs and there would be no crowds of smokers on the pavements or their litter! Now children are seeing smoking in the street, before it was out of sight. No wonder that the numbers of smokers are increasing.
Prohibition does not work. The numbers of smokers was declining until the ban. Education will work, as then there is an informed choice, not coercion.
Until then, there should be provision for smokers. Modern filtration means that the air quality is better than the street. Choice means that nonsmokers never need to even smell tobacco, - unless they choose to!
Or, should we ban smoking in the streets/cars/gardens/houses? Even Hitler could not make that one stick!