From the letters page in last weekend's FT:
Sir,
... A loss of 50 or so pubs per week in the UK and Ireland translates into a five-year loss of roughly 100,000 jobs if we assume the average pub employs 10 people.
The general impact on the economy of these people being forced to go on the dole or work at menial jobs has severe health consequences in and of itself. A British Medical Journal study several years ago examined income inequality and its effect on mortality. It estimated that a 1 per cent difference in income translated into 21 deaths per 100,000 per year.
If we assume that the estimated 100,000 workers who lose their jobs over five years had their income cut by 50 per cent, that would be over 1,000 extra deaths per year caused by the smoking bans. That's 1,000 per year, right now, as opposed to 100 claimed/theorised to [die of cancer from passive smoking] 40 years from now without a ban. Sure, it is all statistics, and with some juggling things might not seem quite so dire, but it is clear that no amount of juggling could ever eliminate such a massive disparity.
The smoking bans in the UK and Ireland are killing people, not saving them. Those bans need to be reversed and the people who promoted them and the politicians who voted them in, knowing the consequences, need to be held responsible.
Michael J McFadden, Philadelphia, PA, US, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains".
No wonder he's never around
1 hour ago
12 comments:
If we assume that the estimated 100,000 workers who lose their jobs over five years had their income cut by 50 per cent
A pretty heroic assumption: most pub staff are students & temporary migrants on min wages, so they're exceptionally unlikely to see a 50% fall in income. And pre-recession, pub closures were being offset by restaurant openings, for which the skills are fairly transferrable.
It's not like closing a steelworks, where you're destroying highly-paid jobs by people whose skills are so specialised they can't get another, which is the kind of event that the studies which show a correlation between unemployment and mortality are looking at.
(The general impact on the economy of these people being forced to... work at menial jobs - err, *what*?)
Agreed, "most" might be temporary, but even if only 10% are permanent (i.e. the landlord himself, who might well have invested a lot of money when he took over), you can divide his 1,000 additional deaths a year by ten = 100, which is on the very high side of possible passive smoking deaths in 40 years time.
If pubs are closing it's because people are not spending their money in them. They are probably spending that money somewehere else and creating new employment opportunities.
"And pre-recession, pub closures were being offset by restaurant openings, for which the skills are fairly transferrable."
This is why I don't argue the smoking ban on economic grounds. Because you'll always get a displacement of economic activity. Someone who doesn't meet his mates down the pub might have more money to spend going out for meals. Someone who had a job in a bar may now get a job in a restaurant.
The question is one of choice. That smoker liked his pint of real ale with his cigarettes and now can't have that choice. The smoking ban reduced his happiness.
TA, you have just made the economic argument against the ban!
For you and me an a million others, the amount of 'enjoyment per £10 spent' is far higher in a smoking pub than ordering a take-away pizza. And pubs are less labour intensive than having a pizza cooked and delivered, so they are more efficient to boot.
"The question is one of choice. That smoker liked his pint of real ale with his cigarettes and now can't have that choice. The smoking ban reduced his happiness"
Exactly, it's a case of personal freedom and choice. The correct policy would have been to give landlords a choice as to whether they were smoking or non smoking pubs or had "areas" defined.
Keep in mind that other establishments such as bingo halls, eateries and working men's clubs are affected too.
People are choosing to drink cheap supermarket booze at home now and filling their homes with smoke (round the kids).
It also clearly affects community relationships. People coming together for a friendly drink and smoke is a good tool for social cohesion.
"TA, you have just made the economic argument against the ban!"
I stand corrected. I should have said "The jobs argument". It also applies, of course, to the stupid job creations scheme of Brown/Darling. More money dumped into car workers=less money for Starbucks/Apple/Agent Provocateur. But we have shown we want more of the latter.
"And pubs are less labour intensive than having a pizza cooked and delivered, so they are more efficient to boot."
you could collect it yourself. you could get through four or five cigs there and back
I'm glad I don't have to endure other people's smoke anymore. I've lost count of the number of pub meals I've had ruined by smokers lighting up next to me.
Selfish lot!
100% agreed with TA. 100% 'cock off' to Darwen Reporter.
I'm a non-smoker, as is my wife who has asthma. Pubs were out of bounds to me before the ban came in. It seems a lot of smokers just cannot grasp how unpleasant a smoky atmosphere can be to a non-smoker. I'm pleased I can now enjoy visits to pubs and restaurants. I would have been quite satisfied with a requirement for a smoke free bar in two room pubs; if folks want to smoke themselves to an early grave, that's their prerogative. Sadly it seems that the few visits I now make to pubs does not compensate for the number of smokers staying at home.
Think it already said - but pubs do not create wealth - the money simply goes elsewhere and no jobs are lost.
Post a Comment