[Pierre]

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?

Why not have the pub equally split???

Why make it law? why not let, as I suggested earlier, let the management of the establishment decide who they wouldlike to cater for?

All I am asking for is freedom of choice - do you not believe in that?

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!!

Thats fine, that is what I was alluding to. If I went to a "none kids" pub and kids were running riot I would expect them to leave. If I was in anon-smoking pub and people were smoking again I would expect them to be booted out.

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

There is such thing as passive abuse, passive drunken assault, passive knocked down and killed, passive home wrecking, passive wife beating.

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.

I agree that you should not be "forced" to breathe other peoples smoke. "properly" segregated (air tight if necessary) areas should be allocated for smokers and non-smokers.

I just believe a blanket ban is necessary or fair. Smokers should be allowed to go out and smoke and enjoy themselves and so should non-smokers.

Surely its possible for both sides to do this??