[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

But wasn't the point that when given the choice the non-smoking pub folded?

Yes exactly. If there were a blanket ban however, non-smoking pubs wouldn't lose out to other pubs, so all pubs would be on an even playing field.

Originally Posted by Paddy1

We still won't have a choice under a total ban.

No but at least then everyone can go to a pub, rather than just the smokers, who can just nip outside for a fag.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I was comparing two things and demonstrating that the exposure to the risks is in my hands, you, well you were going off in a tangent, possibly because you didn't want to admit that my point was correct, possibly for other unknown reasons...

There was no tangent, you were comparing passive smoking to having to listen to someone else's music, I said that the difference is there are no health implications with the music case. (Except that you then decided it would raise your stress levels, which as I pointed out is nothing compared to the health risks associated with smoking.) It is as simple as that and I genuinely have no desire to discuss it further.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So rather than having a no-smoking area where people who don't wish to participate in passive smoking can go and eat and drink, and a smoking area for everyone else, you get a pub which is smoking only, and does not serve food, so a lot of people are now drinking on empty stomachs.

Well as you and many others are arguing against the nanny state, we won't worry too much about the empty stomachs, as I am sure most adults do not need to be fed by nanny. If people are going to drink irresponsibly they are going to drink irresponsibly.