The proposal to ban smoking in public places is flawed. Future implications have not been thought through. Two or three years ago, I would come out of a pub with smoke clinging to my clothes and hair. Not any more. Most have installed smoke extraction systems and have no-smoking areas. I can't remember the last time I was affected by smoke or even aware of it. If I was, I would simply drink somewhere else, there's plenty of choice. This proposal will change socialising and simply drive smokers into their homes or those of their friends. The two or three hours they spent smoking in pubs will now be spent filling small confined rooms, which have no extraction system. Their family, friends and more importantly children will be exposed to significantly more smoke than ever before. Nip outside for a fag? Not for most of the year in this country, and what about the thousands who live in flats? Of course, the effects of this will not be seen for many years, probably long after chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson is no longer interested. Nevertheless, this will be his epitaph. There are two other potentially serious effects. Firstly, going out is a social experience. Most people will have met their partner in this way. Many people meet their friends in pubs. It teaches them the art of conversation. It enables a sense of community. Will people become introvert? Quite likely. Will they sit in front of their televisions, not speaking and filling their house with smoke? Most certainly. Secondly, there is a unique public house system in this country. It's called tenancies. Thousands of man-and-wife teams and their families invest all they have to acquire a pub in this manner. It is not only a business, it's their home. Many will become bankrupt, unemployed or may even become homeless. The Government, or in reality, the taxpayer, will have to foot the bill to support them. Many thousands more who have live-in jobs will suffer the same fate as larger chains and sack staff. Double the price of cigarettes, or even triple them to stop people smoking, but don't force them to continue their habit in their homes. Of course, I forgot. The Government doesn't want people to give up smoking, they earn too much revenue from it. No, they simply want to be seen to be doing something about it. Move it out of sight. Make no mistake, the responsibility will be Donaldson's. I have left until the end of this letter to declare what may be considered a vested interest. I am a non-smoker and own and operate four food-led pubs. Being over 60, the implications for me are minimal. I will simply retire. In my position though, I have seen at first hand the substantial changes in atmosphere in pubs, restaurants and bars. I have also seen the sheer joy people experience when socialising. Find another way! RN Long FBII Via e-mail Bring back old smoke rooms The prospect of an outright ban on smoking in licensed premises must be deeply worrying for publicans who, on the basis of the New York experience, could lose up to 20% of their trade. I wonder if the revival of a convention that pretty much disappeared before the second world war the smoke room might offer a way round a ban for some pubs? A room without a servery (such as a family room) does not, I think, constitute part of the licensed premises perhaps Peter Coulson could confirm this? and therefore might not be included in an eventual ban, depending, of course, on the way it was worded. The fact that there are no staff in such a room also rather neatly gets round the health and safety at work issue. Food for thought? Or a complete non-starter? Ted Bruning Editor What's Brewing Ban equals 52-week hols What a brilliant idea banning smoking in public houses. Just when I thought I could not manage to work any more hours (at least 16 hours a day), the anti-smoking lot, if their suggestions are accepted, will enable me to have far more holidays 52 weeks a year! Christine Todd Via e-mail Guild advises on ID cards The Government's acceptance of the compromise amendment that excludes unsupervised or unaccompanied children under 16 from premises "exclusively or primarily selling alcohol" will surely expedite the introduction of a Government-backed national identity card. This means that added responsibility rests on the shoulders of licensees to ensure that they do not serve under-age customers and that they do not allow access to their licensed premises of children under the age of 16. In its last submission to the Home Office in response to its consultation paper, the Guild of Master Victuallers said that, to be effective, the possession of an identity card should be compulsory. However, it said that it should not be compulsory to carry it at all times, but, if challenged, they may be required by police to produce it within a few days. The guild did not propose what data the card should contain except that it should have a photograph and date of birth as a means of proof of age. JJ Madden, CMBII Executive Officer The Guild of Master Victuallers Elm Park, Essex
