Originally Posted by freezin

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.



I think you will find that there was a demand for smoke free pubs and eating establishments, indeed I know of one landlord who told customers the pub was to become none smoking after refurbishment, this was before the government stepped in with legislation, he claims that initially he had the hard core smokers giving it loads about not drinking in there, but he is now making more money now that it is none smoking, so I think there was a demand there waiting to be tapped.

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.


Well the "demise" of the pub is not solely down to the smoking ban, it is half a dozen of one and half the other.
I think we can all be blamed every time we get our weekly shop and the beer delivered.



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.

Forget the crap, its not nice stinking of smoke, and aslong as I behave myself I am entitled to be in a pub.



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.


See above.


I'm not as willing as you are to make an already diabolical situation even worse. I think you're pretty blasé about tax increases - 5p would make a big, big difference.


You asked if I would be willing to pay more taxes, I gave you the answer, whether you think I am blase does not come into it.


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.