Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
This is a somewhat fallacious argument. There could be any number of reasons why smoke-free pubs didn't take off in the absence of legal compulsion. You can't conclude that the lack of them *must* be due to lack of demand, just because that's the conclusion that best suits the point you want to make.
Fear of losing customers is a very strong motivation for any business. Publicans may have acknowledged a demand for smoke-free environs, but concluded that the risks associated with going down that route were too high, especially when the status quo was demonstrably profitable already.
On the other hand, banning it in law has ensured a level playing field has continued.
|
It isn't a fallacious argument at all. There was no demand from the public for smoke free pubs. The demand came from politicians and health professionals.
Fear of losing customers is a very strong motivation for any business, but the status quo in recent years has not been very profitable. You must have seen the news reports about the number of pubs closing down? Not solely due to the smoking ban, obviously, but it has played its part in the decline of the pub trade. And the law hasn't ensured a level playing field for publicans (v cheap booze from supermarkets) and smokers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004
Do you call making places we are all entitled to visit, this includes pubs you know, pubs are not just for smokers as you seem to be implying with your assertion that nobody makes you go to a pub.
|
No one is "entitled" to visit a pub. It's a private establishment which you enter at the landlord's discretion. I didn't mean to give the impression that I think pubs are just for smokers; most non-smokers I know never complained much at all about cigarette smoke, and don't think it's a factor important enough to help bring about my local's demise.
Quote:
|
With regard Urine, I was making the link between ammonia in cigarettes and ammonia that is naturally secreted form the body, both do not smell nice do they?
|
No, they don't. It would be extremely anti-social to urinate on a person when there are perfectly adequate toilet facilities in pubs. One person urinating on someone is on a different anti-social scale to one person smoking. It's not a valid comparison.
Quote:
Would I be happy to pay more taxes if smoking was totally banned?
The way our country is at the moment we are all including our children going to be paying back a huge debt anyway, what difference would say 5p in the pound make?
|
I'm not as willing as you are to make an already diabolical situation even worse. I think you're pretty blas
é about tax increases - 5p would make a big, big difference.
Quote:
|
The original question was should smoking in cars carrying children be banned and I still say yes.
|
I say the government should leave most parents to look after the welfare of their children and stop interfering, and help the children crying out for state intervention. Then perhaps it can look elsewhere for problems.