According to licensees, a smoking ban in Scotland, due to come into force in spring 2006 if approved, will cost Scotland 2,300 jobs and force more than 140 pubs to close. These are the figures that they will tell MSPs today. This is based on evidence from a study that shows the ban would also see "turnover for the sector drop by £105 million and annual profits slump by £86 million".
Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer has warned critics that they should ignore the warnings from the licensees and think about the human cost of smoking.
Mac Armstrong said: “There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about businesses losing money and profits being hit. But the bottom line here isn’t financial at all. It’s human. And the real benefit is priceless.”
I agree that the ban should be imposed based on health reasons rather than business reasons. Ultimately more money will be saved if the ban can help reduce the numbers of smokers.
It's interesting that this article was posted in today's Times as I was planning on posting an article from the New York Times about how the smoking ban there has not affected businesses as was first thought and overall people, including smokers, are pleased with the cleaner air and cheaper dry-cleaning bills.
I totally disagree with those that say that if a ban comes into force that smokers will stop going to pubs. With nowhere else to go they will still go to pubs. When smoking was banned on flights or in the cinema did smokers stop flying or watching films? Hardly. The quicker the Scottish government imposes the ban the better, and I hope the Welsh follow suit.
I've never agreed with a smoking ban, as it singles out one group of people. People who drink and drive kill people, should the government ban alcohol? Car pollution is dangerous - should they ban cars?
Posted by: Lynne | Tuesday, February 08, 2005 at 12:13 PM