Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SlackDad
Ah I see, even though there is no actual evidence do it anyway, to then see whether we were right all along. A bit like Blair and his WMD's  |
There is actual evidence. The statistics for people who die as a result of smoke each year have been posted in this thread multiple times. It is no giant leap of faith to conclude that if you separate the smoke from the people, then fewer people will be affected by the smoke.
The precise effect, of course, cannot be measured without actually implementing the ban. However the statistics are sufficiently compelling to justify doing it anyway.
Incidentally, Bush and Blair invaded Iraq based on intelligence which, at the time, appeared to justify what they were doing. It quickly became clear that their intel was a pile of dingo's kidneys and therefore their justification was removed (they then found other 'justification' but that's another subject). Are you suggesting that the 'intelligence' that there is a fatal correlation between tobacco smoke and ill health is similarly flawed?