Last orders for the great British boozer?

I’m a recovering smoker. Like millions of others, I started as a weak-willed victim of aggressive marketing that made smoking seem cool and rebellious. I’ve seen thousands of pounds go up literally in smoke. Yet, despite my personal battles with cigarettes, I believe Sir Keir Starmer’s proposed ban on outdoor smoking is not just misguided—it’s downright bonkers.

The 2007 ban on smoking in public indoor spaces in the UK was a monumental shift in public health policy. It was a necessary step to protect those exposed to second-hand smoke daily—bar staff, entertainers, countless other non-smokers who had no choice but to breathe in toxic air. One of the most tragic cases was that of Roy Castle, a beloved English dancer, singer, comedian, actor, and television presenter. He was a lifelong non-smoker, yet he died of lung cancer, almost certainly a victim of the second-hand fumes he inhaled while performing in smoke-filled clubs and bars. This highlighted the deadly impact of passive smoking and underscored the need for restrictions.

However, while the indoor smoking ban greatly improved air quality for both patrons and workers, it also had a massive impact on the pub industry, particularly in communities less affluent than those where many of our politicians reside. My father was a publican, and I remember those days vividly; on a packed winter’s weekend evening, the bar would be so thick with smoke that you could hardly see from one side to the other. The ban undeniably improved the health environment, but it also hurt pubs, many of which were central to their communities.

This current war on outdoor smokers, interestingly, was sparked by Rishi Sunak—someone who seemed to hail from the libertarian wing of the Tory party. You might expect a libertarian to defend personal freedoms, yet Sunak has taken it upon himself to pull the right to a cigarette away from the country. This is a surprising move from someone who you’d think would be more inclined to champion individual choice over state interference.

Pubs, especially in working-class areas, aren’t just places to drink—they’re the heart of the community. Unfortunately, many people in this country unwind after a hard week with a bucketload of alcohol and a few packets of cigarettes. While this may be a public health disaster, it’s also a cultural reality for many communities. The 2007 smoking ban hit these pubs hard, and many never recovered. The proposed outdoor smoking ban threatens to further erode these vital community hubs.

What’s more worrying is what this ban says about our political leaders. Across the political spectrum, there seems to be a growing desperation to legislate on every issue, banning things rather than finding more nuanced and effective ways to change public opinion.

Numerous studies demonstrate that the health risk from second-hand smoke outdoors is minimal. Health issues caused by industrial and motor vehicle pollution have far more significant health implications than standing near someone outside with a lit cigarette.

Rather than jumping into legislation, politicians should focus on education, public information campaigns, or even taxation. Duties have already made it nearly financially impossible for all but the most committed to be full-time smokers. But instead, they opt for the blunt instrument of a ban.

There’s a simple argument to consider at the heart of all this — one that goes back to the principles of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. If it can be shown that a smoker isn’t harming the health of those around them, if they understand the risks of their pastime, and if they’re paying enough tax to cover the impact on the NHS, then surely individuals should have the right to spark up—even if it does end up killing them. Personal freedom should allow individuals to make their own choices, as long as those choices don’t directly harm others. Instead of imposing bans that encroach on personal freedoms, we should respect people’s autonomy while continuing to educate and encourage healthier lifestyles.

Lastly, you know what? I’m going to be upfront about this—I like going to the pub. I enjoy laughing and shouting in a boozer with friends. I like nipping down for a quick pint, and those chance meetings with friends of similar disposition and humour often turn into a session on the ale that could kill a horse. I adore Guinness, especially the 4.4% stuff. I love a good ale, and I even like lager (when it’s warm enough). I enjoy the top shelf, especially whisky, and when it’s close to closing time, thinking it’s a good idea to snort salt, down tequila, and stick lemon in my eye. And yes, I like a cigarette. In fact, I bloody love them. It’s a reality that all this has had a detrimental impact on my health, but I enjoy it so much that I really do think such pleasures make life worth living. That might be testament to my worthless life, but it’s the way it is. I can foresee a time when all of this might be taxed or legislated away. 

Instead of punishing smokers (and hospitality workers) with misguided bans, we should focus on smarter, more balanced approaches to public health. Give people incentives to give up, rather than stripping away cherished aspects of our social lives. The Prime Minister is said to be fond of his local. Perhaps he should listen to the regulars rather than the regulators.

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation.