Smoking Bans

Pub Owner Jailed for Flouting Smoking Ban

|

Smokin'!

From the Daily Mail:

A former pub landlord yesterday became the first person to be jailed in connection with the smoking ban.

Nick Hogan, 43, was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to pay a fine imposed for flouting the legislation.

Two years ago Hogan, who ran two pubs in Bolton, became the first landlord convicted of breaking the law for allowing his customers to routinely light up in his bars.

A judge fined Hogan, of Chorley, Lancashire, £3,000 and ordered him to pay £7,236 in costs after finding him guilty of four charges under the Health Act 2006.

But the married father-of-two refused to pay the fine and yesterday, after repeatedly being hauled back before the courts, a judge sitting at Bolton Crown Court finally lost patience and jailed him.

Juliet Samuel noted the start of the U.K.'s national smoking ban here.

NEXT: SWAT Team Endangers Child, Parents Charged With Child Endangerment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow, talking about a kangaroo court and a kangaroo judge. What a joke.

    Sandy
    http://www.total-anonymity.cz.tc

  2. Wow, that is kinda crazy is it not??

    Justin
    http://www.total-anonymity.cz.tc

    1. if an anonymity bot comments in the forest does anyone hear it? or is that the whole point?

      1. Did anon bot say something?

      2. Have you not been around for awhile? Anonymity Bot broke character a few days ago. It is merely his version of Theatre of the Absurd.

  3. He wasn’t jailed for violating the smoking ban. The Reason headline makers are getting as skilled at distortion as the AP’s.

    1. Right, Tulpa. And you also pay your taxes out of the goodness of you heart.

      1. They are voluntary, you know.

    2. What was he jailed for, then? He violated the ban, and is now in jail as a consequence. How is the headline an example of distortion?

      1. He was jailed for not paying the fine. That is how they handle non-payment in Europe. http://info-wars.org/index.php…..ying+fines

      2. He was jailed for failing to pay a fine lawfully imposed by the court.

        If you get a ticket for jaywalking, and fail to pay the resulting fine, you are likely to go to jail. That doesn’t mean you got “jail for jaywalking”.

        1. You’re splitting hairs. He is in jail as a consequence of violating the smoking ban.

          1. Tom, they use the debtor prison for people who refuse to pay-up. Hogan most likely had the cash because had sold his leases on his pubs(they are valuable).

          2. And if the cops pull over a guy for having an obstructed rear view because his trunk is too far open, and then see a bunch of dead bodies in the trunk, leading to him being convicted for capital murder, then you would say that he got the death penalty for leaving his trunk open. Right?

            1. No, because the death penalty is not part of the punishment for an obstructed rear view.

              Imprisonment is, however, part of the punishment for a smoking ban violation and its resulting unpaid fine.

              Obviously, in some pedantic, hair-splitting sense, you are correct. But that’s the whole point: Hair-splitting isn’t enough to merit roaring out of the gate accusing Reason of “distortion.”

            2. Hey Tulpa, I want nothing more than to see you jailed for some trivial offense, and then I want the consequent entertainment of watching you rationalize your own imprisonment. However, I probably want to avoid watching the inevitable masturbation to authority that you’ll do afterward. Do you dream of having the cops beat you with a phone book? I really want to know.

              1. I wouldn’t have been jailed for this offense; I would have paid the fine and worked to get the law changed (or appealed if I thought I had a constitutional case against the law).

                But I see we’re going to play this game where the Libertarian Herd (apparently not the oxymoron we thought it was) stampedes over anyone who questions the minutest part of its opinions.

                1. You didn’t answer my question.

                  1. Epi,
                    Question A about “the inevitable masturbation to authority that you’ll do afterward.”
                    OR
                    Question B “Do you dream of having the cops beat you with a phone book?

                    Which one do you really want to know?

                    1. Question B.

                    2. Question B was a trick question. Who the hell has a phone book anymore?

                2. How do you know that the pub owner’s refusal to pay the fine wasn’t based on him taking the position that the law was illegal (I avoid saying “constitutional”, since the Brits don’t have a constitution.)

                  And, re: the bodies in a trunk thing, you don’t have the option in a murder case of getting out of the punishment by paying a fine.

                  I mean, you are technically right about the proximate cause of his incarceration, but we’re talking about the ultimate cause here.

                  1. You guys don’t really seem to be addressing the OBVIOUS problem that allowing people to refuse to pay a fine because “they think the law is illegal”. If he successfully appeals his conviction, that would be a different story, but there’s no indication from the article that he did this.

                    1. Agreed. You describe a very a serious problem — for the over-reaching authorities.

                  2. And, re: the bodies in a trunk thing, you don’t have the option in a murder case of getting out of the punishment by paying a fine.

                    That makes the causation even more direct. So if anything, it would be more correct to say he was put to death for leaving his trunk open, than to say this guy was jailed for violating the smoking ban (since he could have chosen to avoid jail even after he violated the ban).

            3. Technically, in this country, it would be considered “Contempt of Court”. Or, not bending over to allow a municipal court judge to fuck you in the ass.

              BTW, most of the municipal judges in my area are personal injury lawyers. Go figure.

        2. He’s jailed for noncompliance with a statute. Spinning it as anything else is absurd. The fine was based on compliance with a law, the refusal to pay the fine and subsequent contempt is rooted in the noncompliance. To try and separate the two is stupid.

          1. “Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

    3. You are right, he was jailed for standing up for basic human rights.

      1. Do you mean like the right to healthcare?

        1. what right?

          Name one other species (you have millions to choose from) that have a right to “Healthcare”

          1. OH, I am so tired of positive/negative rights arguments. The fact that people cannot be refused access to emergency room care means that even the government recognizes healthcare as a right.

            1. Hey clitme,

              How about instead of passing a gigantic government takeover of health care and health insurance through a law that makes a bad situation worse, Congress starts the process to add the 28th amendment to the Constitution which makes healthcare/insurance (or food or housing or transportation or clothes or cable or an iPod) a right. Then start the process of applying that amendment into a law to make heathcare run by the government a reality.

              Or how about just discussing it openly in front of the American people instead of hiding in an anteroom somewhere in the Capitol and voting on it at 2am on Saturday?

              1. Bravo, Mr Obummer, a bullseye.

            2. I bet you are, since you seem incapable of understanding them.

            3. Nice attempt, RCTL, but you’re stretching what you want to be real into something that does not exist in reality.

              Do we have a right to food?

              1. Yes we do have a right to food, clean water and shelter. Do you think that children, the elderly or the infirm should be left on the street? Society has a responsibility to help through charity and our government. I think it is interesting that every major religion shares the brother’s keeper concept but libertarians view it has a unnecessary burden.

                1. Bullshit, RCTL.

                  Besides, the “brother’s keeper” argument comes from the Bible. How convenient you liberals are about forgetting the separation of church and state when it’s convenient for your socialist bullshit goals.

                  1. How convenient of you libertarians reminding everyone of the separation of church and state when it’s convenient for your selfish goals.

          2. Just sayin’…

        2. Healthcare is not a human right.

          1. Wow, those fatal words “epic fail” seals the argument.

          2. You need more than a catchy name when battling RCTL/CLITME.

            1. Bleek, nom de plume!

              1. zzzzzzzzzz

                1. No sleeping on the job RCTL.

                  1. Bleek, now I can’t use clitme again!!

                    1. Sorry – just a PITA.

  4. I smoke at a bar in a non-smoking state. We have to put out the cigarettes and hide the cups when our the drug dealers are pulling up. Can’t trust them drug dealers.

    1. In Holland, you can smoke marijuana in hash bars, but not when it is mixed with tobacco. A national smoking ban for bars & restaurants was instated in 2008. But the smoking inspectors do not have legal powers to go into the hash bars.

    2. The best solution I’ve seen is the bar owner sells you a tin ashtray for $3.00 and the money goes into a fund to pay the fine when/if busted.

      Personally I think its kind of fucked up a restaurant or bar owner can’t allow smoking in their place of establishment. Non-smokers aren’t forced to eat or drink there.

      A common sense law wouldn’t ban smoking in the establishment but would require an extravagant ventilation systems if the owner wants to permit smoking and this would enable the free market to work, and it might even put some people to work installing these type systems.

      Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker control freak too.

      1. What social engineer big or small is not a control freak.

        1. Edward Bernays socially engineered the masses but not by coercion.

  5. I wonder what Hulk Hogan has to say about this? Brother!!

  6. I would donate $50 to this Freedom Warrior, if I knew how.

    1. They are collecting here:

      http://bastardoldholborn.blogs…..g-ban.html

      The account given on this link is that Nick Hogan could not afford the fines and costs at the rate requested by the courts.

      1. Well done, Belinda. It’s always a pleasure having some one around who is capable of finding the quality links.

        If only Google had your skills it would be much better world for all.

  7. He sold the leases and no longer owns the bars.

    1. Yet sits in prison

      1. He won’t likely do the 6 months. Murderers routinely get 6 years and they walk early.

        1. ” Murderers routinely get 6 years and they walk early.”

          Murderers yeah, but this guy refused to pay a fine! I’m sure Tulpa agrees that that warrants life imprisonment.

        2. oh good

          Someone smokes a cigarette on private property whilst the owner was not even there.

          So the government puts him in gaol for six months.

          Remember, history should tell you that the shit Europe’s politicians gets up to WILL fill American cemetaries. It always does.

  8. They can have my ciggie butts when they pry them out of my cold, dead by lung cancer, tobacco stained fingers!!!

    1. Fucking eh! Some of us don’t want to live to be 90 spending the last ten years of life with Alzheimers. 🙂

  9. How odd that Mister Proppity Rights! himself is silent as to who should be making the decision to allow or forbid smoking in a private place of business.

    1. Assuming you’re referring to me from the infamous snowball fight thread, I (obviously) think smoking bans on private property are bullshit. I seriously doubt they’re unconstitutional though, so the only option is to try to get the laws repealed.

      1. Well, personally, I think violating stupid laws is sort of a civic duty. Kind of along the lines of passive resistance. If enough people refuse to obey the law, then the government either has to resort to repressive measures, such as throwing them all in prison, or repeal it. Such passive resistance methods have historically been a part of the whole “working to change the law” process.

        I think we may have a difference of opinion as to what sort of methods are appropriate in attempting to create changes in the laws. Are you of the opinion that people are obliged to obey even unjust laws and work “within the system” in general, or do you merely think that smoking bans rise to the level of oppresion that requires extra-legal methods of resistance?

        1. er DON’T rise to that level of oppressiveness

        2. It depends on the level of injustice. Smoking bans are way below that level in my opinion, while the fugitive slave law was well above the critical level.

          But in any case, the headline is misleading, which is my main point here.

          1. Well, it seems like kind of a quibble to me.

            “Pub owner jailed for refusing to pay fine for flouting smoking ban” is kind of wordy. Perhaps they were just trying to be concise.

            1. Conciseness is secondary to verity in my opinion.

              1. Not according to most of your posts.

              2. whoops, read that backwards.

                1. “.stsop ruoy fo tsom ot gnidrocca toN”

                  That doesn’t make any sense.

                  1. You should spend your next vacation interning with them and show them how it’s done.

                    You’re right it doesn’t make sense backwards.

        3. I’m in agreement with that notion, Hazel.

          There is a couple small catches though. Before passing a law they usually till the soil by drumming up opposition among the brainless husks against whatever it is they intend to outlaw. Seriously, some people will believe anything, especially coming from an authority figure.. Those people make up a considerable percentage of the human population. Once they accept their new belief, let’s call it the stupid ground, once on that ground they view any attempt reason them away from it to be an all out offensive against their position. Most have a couple extremely effective defenses used to defeat such an assault, they either refuse to discuss, or are unwilling or incapable of common sense.

          The second is those we elect have no consideration for any but themselves. They couldn’t care less about jailing a bunch of us, they do it all the time, they’re doing it now as I type this. They jail and imprison a considerably larger number of their own people than any other nation on earth does. They’re addicted to power. Happening upon a lucky chance to jail more of us just makes them cum in their power freak pants.

          The only thing that gets a politician’s attention on an issue is being voted out over it. And let’s face it when it comes to our one civic duty that really matters, that being casting our legal and informed vote, we Americans either don’t vote, cast many more votes than our own, or simply vote in the most incompetent and destructive misinformed manner imaginable. Those parts of the country that don’t vote the same despots in over, and over, either rotate the same bunch of despots in and out, or vote in a different and new despot one after another.

          Our lawmakers and other politicians have no reason to feel insecure over abusing us. They know they are safe to be our enemies because they know plenty among us are our own worst enemies and are not bright enough to figure that one out. It’s not like people are going to suddenly wake up and see the light. Surely we’ve all seen bright people go dim, I’ve seen many in my lifetime. When is the last time you witnessed a complete idiot miraculously develop common sense?

  10. Ironically, Mr. Hogan will be allowed to smoke while he is in jail (unless sent to the Isle of Mann which features Europe’s only non-smoking prison).

    1. I don’t know about Europe, but almost all of the county jails in NJ are smoke-free. In Camden, it took three tries, and finally, a six week lockdown of the entire jail. You can still get cigarettes in Camden County Jail, but it will cost you 10 items (candy bars). NJ State prisons are not smoke free.

      1. BTW, Camden County Jail is one of the worst in the country for many reasons.

      2. so basically, if arrested in NJ, make sure you get sent to the state pen?

  11. I (obviously) think smoking bans on private property are bullshit.

    This may surprise you, but it’s not obvious at all. And your eager subservience is depressing.

  12. Where’s Robin Hood when you need him? Bust this innocent man out of jail, steal some gold from the local government to support his family, then have his Merry Men drag the judge away for some good old fashioned public humiliation.

    Do Britons not have balls anymore?

    1. Robin hood was a liberal redistributionist. Telling that story to one’s children preps them for thinking that liberal politicians are acting admirably when they impose taxes for “the rich” to benefit “the downtrodden”.

      Never read Robin Hood to my kids — didn’t feel like poisoning their minds that way.

      1. That childhood fantasy thing is overrated. I recommend War and Peace.

      2. No he wasnt. In the original stories he kept the money for himself.

        1. and Hansel and Gretel encourages diabetes.

      3. Tell your kids that Robin Hood was recovering taxes collected unjustly by the Sheriff and returning the money to the oppressed taxpayers.

        1. That’s how i understood the disney version as a kid. Hood was returning their rightful belongings. Shit, those peasants didn’t even have universal health care for all that taxation!

          1. Chickens went a long way back then.

    2. We’re working on it.

      Watch me. If the East Germans can do it, so can we

    3. “Do Britons not have balls anymore?”

      They live in a police state. Lady Thatcher was the last Brit with any balls.

    4. “Do Britons not have balls anymore?”

      Daniel Hannan’s balls. Unfortunately, as impressive as Mr Hannan’s balls are, once divided up among so many who have none of their own the portions are a little meager to develop much spine in any.

      It’s not like Mr Hannan has Mr Obama’s divine power to perform miracles. Mr Obama once, while delivering a Marxist sermon to a large gathering of spineless World Socialists used two balls to develop spines within all in attendance.

      Something tells me God is having one Hell of a laugh at our expense. Why didn’t He make Hannan the Messiah, or at least some one with a shred of decency or common sense.

      Well, if it’s so, at least we can give up the ghost knowing we were needed and had a valuable purpose here. Even if it was just to be the butts of a cruel joke. Something is better than nothing.

  13. Has anyone ever been given a VOTE for or against a smoking ban in England/Wales/Northern Ireland/Scotland?

    Thought not!

    They have prosecuted & jailed someone on the basis of an illegal law. That is the truth.

    1. I’m lost,is this EU Constitution sarcasm or honest belief that any part of the UK is direct democracy? I was under the impression that they were a parlimentary democracy with a figure-head monarch, in which, not only do you not get to vote on the law, you don’t get to vote directly on your representative, only his or her party.

      1. The British Labour party’s last pre-election manifesto promised RESTRICTIONS of smoking in establishments WHERE FOOD IS SOLD.
        Why? Because the majority of the British public was happy FOR ALL to have a choice!

        The British Labour party then amended the election manifesto in the eleventh hour of the election – didn’t tell anybody – and promptly introduced a BLANKET (COMPLETE) smoking ban. EXCEPT in places considered to be a ‘Palace’ – like Westminster itself.
        So, the very government WHO LIED in their election manifesto, are still allowed to smoke in their ‘place of work’, which happens to be a PUB in the heart of Westminster!

        And while we’re on the subject – the EU are allowed to smoke in the European Parliament.

        What part of ‘this is against human rights’ do the anti-smokers not understand?

        This has NOTHING to do with “protecting workers’ health”. It is social engineering and a money-spinner (just look at the taxes from cigarettes and at Big Pharmaceutical companies’ profits, for starters. Hint: bogus ‘benefits’ of nicotine replacement therapy).

  14. Thanks for covering this story. This is the perfect example of why the Nanny State needs to be dismantled here in the U.S. and abroad. Keep on rockin’ in the “free” Western World. Putting this man in jail for trying to serve his smoking clientele, one which is heavily taxed btw, is criminal.

    May the Labour Party lose big time in the next election! …and when that happens, let’s hope that a little bit of that old live free or die spirit spills over here into the good ole’ U.S. of A.! N.S. (Nanny State) be gone:-)

    Nick Hogan stood up for himself, for his business, and for his customers. We should all have such a spine.

    1. I like your attitude, jredheadgirl.

      Seeing Nick Hogan show some spine has also impressed yours truly. These days for any individual to do such is very rare and uncommon. A little surprising considering the vast numbers of mature adults in these various western nations who are fed up with being treated like children by the brainless imbeciles in their various governments.

  15. so much business lost.Putting this man in jail is a crime.
    http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm

    Donate if you can

    http://bastardoldholborn.blogs…..g-ban.html

    1. The smokersclub link is interesting I’ll have to take a closer look at it after I can get back to the computer. It used to be a regular thing, but since they enforced the smoking ban here I haven’t been out to eat and have been to the bars a couple times just briefly. Not because I’m upset with them or anything, it’s just not enticing to know I’m going to leaving my hard earned cash somewhere I won’t be any more comfortable than if I were at some one’s grandmother’s house and she doesn’t want us smoking because it bother’s her cat Mr Moustafolees. I’d find myself inventing an excuse to leave the house with little delay, so I can’t see going into a bar where I would usually stay for hours if I’m just going to leave right after I arrive.

      Well, looks bad for the businesses, but I save a lot of money so I can smoke a lot more cigarettes and have a lot more drinks and still have money and spare time for other vices I would’ve otherwise been too busy and strapped for cash to take part in.

  16. Sir,you are the next winston churchill and have the respect of every freedom loving individual in the world!

  17. Millions have given their lives for freedom,millions have spent their lives fighting for it,billions still yearn for it. A few hundred want to
    demolish freedom and here we are, still
    discussing it. Those who would deny
    us freedom need some urgent attention
    by any means ,by any method 52x7x24.
    Time to kick ass,not click keyboards.

    Angry Goth

  18. Nick Hogans Imprisonment for non payment of fines is a travesty of justice. The judge in this case was well aware that he had the power to remove property to the value of the fines as opposed to a prison term which will cost the British taxpayer nearly twelve times as much to administer than if he had paid the fines or if they had removed property to the value of the fines.

    The only reasonable conclusion is that this is political decision as opposed to a judicial decision. Nick has been an outspoken critic of a highly devisive law, a law that is in part reponsible for lost jobs and closure of over 5000 pubs and clubs, has seen several assaults, the rape of a nurse and several murders. It has resulted in some local authorities to refuse adoptions to smokers, to place wardens with no powers of arrest but enough power to harrass smokers smoking outside which is the only permissable place to smoke except in your own home, to impose on the spot fines which under section 39 of the Magna Carta (Which forms the basis of your own constitution) by imposing fines without benefit of trial by our peers.

    I recall a long distant war in which taxation without representation illegal fines and many other complaints against the government of the day gave birth to a nation, will that nation today sit back and watch another country suffer the same?

    Any donation to Nick Hogans fund will be greatfully recieved, if some feel that they cannot support Nick with a donation then feel free to contact the British Embassy and make your view known there.

    I am a citizen of the United Kingdom (not of the EU and nor will I ever be), I am as proud of my country as Americans are of yours, if constructive critism of my country is part of the price to remove this obscene law then I for one will accept that price. Freedom has a heavy price tag attached, those who support freedom pay that price and Nick Hogan is paying that price.

  19. I just wish those people who despise and are terrified of liberty and are offended by freedom would be honest about it. It doesn’t matter if it’s about censorship and “hate speech” or smoking bans or plastic grocery bags or healthcare or any of the bazzillion things that the busybodies feel like they need to intervene with. It’s always the same old thing – we believe in freedom…except in regard to this and that and this other thing.

    Just be honest and say that you don’t think people should be free and that you think individuals are owned by society. This is what I find so offensive about both the left and the right and the middle for that matter – no one on that scale actually believes in liberty and yet they pretend that they do. Just be honest for a change and say that you don’t believe in freedom and you don’t believe that people have a right to control their own lives and destinies.

    ps. I know I occassionally/frequently post non-sequitor type things in these comments, but these are often the sorts of things that dawn on me when I read these pieces and I can not resist the urge to express them.

    1. It’s hard for people to not want to control and coordinate “important” matters. Part of the problem is that we free marketers need to always emphasize that markets do involve many, many more people in controlling, coordinating, and cooperating “important” matters than central planning.

  20. This is a very nice illustration of how every law, even ones that nominally are enforced only with fines, are, at the end of the day, laws that are based on the threat of imprisonment.

    Yes, Tulpa, he went to jail because people smoked in his pubs. Sure, they gave him the option of buying off his jail term with a fine of over $15,000, but the threat of jail looms over any violation of any statute, no matter how picayune.

  21. What would a real crook have to do, before he gets fined with ? 15.000? Any thief or jaw cracking hooligan in GB gets far less punished than any smoker or denier to play nanny for a fully gone mad babysitter-state, refusing to lower himself as a denunciator, as a Blockwart, well know from the Third Reich.

    Have landlords now become non-salaried employees of the executive, controlling their fellow men’s health habits, being forced by a hilarious fascist law to denounce them to a hyper and over controlled state?

    Anyone living and working in London is, according to official published figures, being filmed by cameras installed all over the city of Jack the Ripper more than 300 times a day.

    At which point and when does this madness end? What are the authorities really afraid of? What next prohibition is being installed in the fake name of “fight the terrorism”? Nosepicking?

    Carolus Magnus

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.