Hotels enforce tobacco bans, not fat health lobby WAN
The debate over smoking restrictions used to be based more on occupational health and safety, but has moved to personal and social dislikes and preferences.
The push to ban smoking from all outdoor public areas is based more on the personal preference of the powerful health lobby that continually seeks taxpayer handouts, not for the good of others, but to extend their powerful empires.
When will their pursuit of power and social control stop? Will they next ask for designated eating areas for overweight people or simply ban them from eating in front of others?
Smoking rates in Australia continue to fall, but it appears the push to extend bans to cover outdoor areas is based on ideology and the “convenience” of the non-smoking majority.
The availability of these outdoor smoking facilities on licensed premises have been instrumental in securing public acceptance of indoor smoking bans, in contrast to many European countries where non-smoking laws are mainly ignored by the public and many hospitality operators.
The effectiveness of smoking bans was achieved through the hard work of organisations such as the Australian Hotels Association that led the commonsense argument for gradual change as well as educating hospitality management and owners on how to achieve acceptable restrictions.
Most importantly, the de facto smoke police, hospitality operators, peer pressure and reinforcement by patrons themselves has been the key, not enforcement by regulators.
The same spirit of endorsement could not be expected if smoking was also completely banned in outdoor areas and excessive intervention puts acceptance at risk.
The analogy in an article on these pages last Thursday that “it’s like telling a bunch of kids about to jump in the public pool that urinating is not allowed in half the pool” is ridiculous.
There are several regulations that must be met for an area to legally be a smoking area.
There are now more venues than ever that choose to be non-smoking and many venues with smoking areas opt not to use the 50 per cent of allowable space. Similarly, some venues move their smoking areas to accommodate the sea breeze and non-smoking customers.
Businesses need to differentiate in an extremely competitive market — they give customers choice and do it well.
Last Thursday’s article by Cathy O’Leary fails to outline the positive steps government and industry have introduced or advocated to support smoking restrictions since they began in 2006. She also conveniently failed to mention the campaigns the industry has run on changing patron behaviour.
But that would not suit the excessively taxpayer funded health lobby that so often gets front-page headlines in The West Australian.
The AHA can provide clear evidence that there is not an overwhelming desire for smoking to be banned from licensed venues.
Many people continue to smoke despite being forced into outdoor areas of bars, pubs and taverns.
Hospitality venues have certainly played their part in removing smoking from licensed premises, especially considering they already operate under the most onerous regulatory trading environment in Australia.
Likewise, hospitality venues across WA have put significant investment into the renovation, refurbishment and extension of premises in line with various changes to smoking legislation and regulations.
If businesses have the opportunity to decide their outdoor smoking policies for themselves based on their perceptions of customer demand, changes in these policies over time are more likely to be reflective of community attitudes towards smoking.
Bradley Woods is chief executive of the Australian Hotels Association, WA.
Source: Australian Hotels Association WA, 25 November 2013
