In an attempt to counteract the effects of the no smoking laws, quite a few cafes and bars have introduced small street terraces – Dani’s, Ortiz, El Pulguilla to name but a few. Others have adopted a smaller scale approach, presumably to keep potential costs to a minimum.
Terraces are not cheap these days, far from it, the cost (tax) of just a couple of tables having increased dramatically in recent times.
Some bars have started putting just one high table outside the bar as a place for smokers to congregate and place their drinks on while they have a quick fag. Is it strictly a terrace, especially if the table is within the overhang of a doorway, for example?
No doubt the authorities will be keeping a beady eye on these tables and charging where conceivably possible. One thing is almost certain, monitoring of such things will be carried out with far more ‘vigour’ than is the case with more pressing problems such as the phenomenal amount of dog poo on the streets and pavements. The town has become a veritable minefield again.
An interesting solution to the no smoking situation at bar Colorao and, presumably, as it doesn’t actually involve street furniture, a cost-free solution.
The windows of the bar are recessed, so the installation of a nice, wooden ‘bar’ allows for the placing of drinks and ashtrays. Great for the summer and no infringement on the pavement, except by people.
One would have to start classifying stationary people as ‘street furniture’….ooops, shouldn’t give them any ideas. Window shopping tax?
will says:
Researchers from Bath University have concluded that the smoking ban has resulted in 1,200 fewer heart attack hospital admission in the year following the introduction of the legislation. The study analysed data from the period between July 2002 – September 2008. By studying the five year period prior to the ban, researchers were able to determine annual trends in terms of heart attack hospital admissions, and then apply these past trends to a hypothetical scenario in which the smoking ban had not been introduced. These figures were then compared to actual data compiled throughout the 12 months after the commencement of the ban.
The outcome was that the ban has potentially decreased the number of heart attack patients by 2.4%. The predicted figures can be translated as an £8 million saving for the NHS, and the prevention of circa 180 deaths. Every year approximately 141,000 people in the UK suffer a heart attack, about a third of die before arriving at a hospital. Within the hospital though, the survival rate is 85%, in which case, of a group of 1,200, 180 would not recover.
Although demonstrating obvious association between the smoking ban and the lower number of heart attack admissions in England, the study fails to investigate on a more comprehensive level. It remains impossible to say with any degree of certainty to what extent the ban has had on the overall numbers of heart attack patients, with other factors such as an unhealthy diet, excessive alcohol consumption and a lack of exercise all major causes of cardiac problems. Furthermore, the research does not investigate the smoking status of patients or their experience of passive smoking prior to the ban.
Since 2002 there has been a steady decrease in the number of heart attack hospital admissions, a fact cited by anti-non-smoking campaigners who suggest that the latest figures simply conform to the yearly fall in emergency heart attack admissions. However, this is not an accurate interpretation of the study. As aforementioned, the data was arrived at through a comparison of two scenarios; one in which the ban had not been created, and the other the reality in which we live.
This piece of legislation has clearly gone some way to addressing the health issues associated with smoking. There is however, much more that can be done by individuals. The benefits of not smoking can be felt in one’s health, lifestyle, and finances. By giving up the habit, one is far less likely to suffer from cancer and heart problems, and will find that they save a small fortune not only on the purchase of cigarettes or cigars, but also on financial products such as life insurance, which can be three or four times more expensive for a smoker.
The results speak for themselves, in cost to ones health and wealth.
I smoked for many years before quitting the habit over 10years ago. I think it was the best decision i ever made and have not smoked to date. If you are a smoker who enjoys their habit I fully understand your issues and counter arguments. Maybe the cigarette companies will offer some of their large profits to bar and cafe owners to make designated smoking areas a more comfortable place?
Overall an interesting topic for debate.
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
will says:
I think the little and often method may be something to adopt in the early stages of the NO Smoking ban.It is soething that needs to be introduced with a feather duster approach rather than a sledge hammer. Again the health issue will always be at the forefront of the debate, but the need for staged No Smoking Bans is something the smokers can understand and come to terms with. Offer the smoking gang an olive branch approach as opposed to a thats it, you cant smoke here Zone approach may help in the long term success of helping people to quit as opposed to a brick wall, I am not going to be told when and where i can have a ciggie. There is always room for debate, smoker V Non Smoker, but good tapas and vino in a lovely nerja cafe bar should ease the situation.