Pubs and the smoking ban (1)

I suspect that Lucien Stafrace (September 16) hopes readers will either misread or misinterpret the report about J. D. Wetherspoon, the big British pub chain, in implying that its profits increased following a ban on smoking.

The company report, which he correctly quoted from this newspaper, actually said profits had gone up in a year "during which it has experimented with restricting smoking" - which is not quite the same as higher profits resulting from a smoking ban.

While some of its pubs are entirely smoke free, the emphasis here is on the experiment of restricting smoking, not banning it.

The following sentence was not reported anywhere: "At present, of the company's 661 pubs, over 40 in England and Wales are non-smoking inside, but with careful consideration and investment given to providing welcoming external areas for smokers, so providing the very best environment for smokers and non-smokers alike."

It's a fair guess that, if banning smoking had such a profound effect on profit, the number of smoke-free pubs would be far higher than about one in 16.

However, Wetherspoon profits have far less to do with smoking, or not smoking, than with the fact that they sell beer at about one-third cheaper than most other places. Wetherspoon pubs always banned smoking at the bar, and where practicable provided family areas (usually at the far end of a large room, and accessible only via the smoking section) where people could eat in a smoke-free environment, while smokers could opt to eat, drink and smoke in the main area, indoors.

What they provide - and what Malta has failed to provide - is an element of choice for the paying customer. Some patrons get a smoke-free space, and others get a child-free one.