[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

And, has already been pointed out, all that means is that the smoke drifts over from the smoker's area.

Oh, and IME usually the "no smoking" area is a small section stuck in a corner or practically separated off from the main area of the pub.

But if you actually look at the number of people smoking in the main part of the pub, it's only a fairly small proportion. So why not re-arrange things so the "drug addicts" can go into a small room, get their fix, then come out and join the rest of us when they've finished instead of the whole pub being polluted by their smoke?



Except the analogy fails when you look at the fact that many pubs only allow children in the "family garden" or similar area and, of those that permit them in the main part of the pub, they tend to request that you keep your children quiet and well behaved.

If the children start to behave in a way that affects other pub users, the landlord may well ask the parents to leave.

Now let's put that back in the context of smoking. The smokers can do it, provided it's in the garden or similar set-aside area and if they do it in the main part of the pub it's going to affect other pub users, so it is *THEY* who should leave if they don't like it!!



Why is it a poor comparison? If you drink alcohol it doesn't affect *me*! There's no such thing as "passive drinking"!



With freedoms come *responsibilities*. As I've said before, your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose. Someone's freedom to smoke should end when *I* am forced to breathe their smoke or have it stink up my clothes.

That is the best post I have ever seen you write. Well put