Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
Yes, people are being forced into smoking establishments because if they want a night out, there's nowhere else to go!
Why should smokers be forced out? Because their minority behaviour has an unacceptable impact on the majority. Making things harder for them might also encourage them to quit a habit that's likely to kill them also.
It's that simple!
|
Chris, could you please post a link to any research that has been done which shows that non-smokers make up the majority of patrons of public houses. I know the approximate percentage of the UK population who are thought to be smokers but have never seen any survey that gives the percentage of public house patrons who are thought to be smokers.
Nobody is forcing anyone into a smoky public house if they want a night out even if there are no non-smoking public houses in the area. There are other places that are non-smoking where you can have a very good night out. Theatre, cinema, restaurant, etc. etc.
I think what you were really trying to say is that there is nowhere to go for a good night out that serves alcohol. If smoking was banned in all public houses then the smoking fraternity (which could be a majority of patrons) would have nowhere to go for a good night out in a place that serves alcohol and allows smoking.
If there is a lack of no-smoking public houses in an area it is most likely because the majority of pub goers want to enjoy a smoke whilst there. You can't tell me that every pub owner is more concerned with tradition and fear of losing custom by becoming non-smoking. If the vast majority of people are non-smokers and most of these only go to smoking allowed pubs because there is no alternative the there is huge potential to reap the massive rewards that opening a no-smoking pub would bring.
Smoking and passive smoking are bad for the health. I don't think that anyone in this thread is saying otherwise. There are beneficial factors for some people in smoking, not everything is negative. The statistics on deaths caused by smoking and passive smoking however have to be subject to analysis. There is a huge difference between saying a person died of a smoking related illness and that smoking killed them. A smoker may die from lung cancer for instance but it may not have been smoking that caused the cancer to develop but the death would more than likely be classed as being caused by smoking.
Many of the deaths from illnesses that could be smoking related are in the over 65 year old age bracket. These are people who probably started smoking in their teens when filter tipped cigarettes were very rare indeed. Will we see a reduction in deaths in this age bracket in future years due to smokers being introduced to the habit with filter tipped cigarettes? Logic says that we will see a reduction because of this fact and the other fact that less people are now smoking. The non-smokers will point to the reduction as being evidence that a smoking ban in public places has caused the reduction.