Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Oh Really?
|
Xaccers I never said that higher blood pressure levels, or stress levels were not bad for your health. I said that when you listen to music you don't like, it is not bad for your health. Can you see the difference? If listening to music you don't like stresses
you out, then that is different, despite the fact that I disagree that it will affect the health of the general population as much as passive smoking. Now can we drop this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SlackDad
I accept that there may have been other reasons why this one particular establishment didn't succeed, but it at least serves as an illustrative example of pro-banners not really putting there money where there mouth is. But no doubt the pros will conveniantly overlook this fact and go on to argue that all smoking, everywhere, for all time, should be banned regardless.
|
The point I was making was that people were saying the non-smoking pub was losing out to smoking pubs. This would not happen if all pubs banned smoking. People were saying that given a choice, landlords would not ban smoking for commercial reasons. I say, this may be true, but my major concern is not for the profits of the landlords. If a blanket ban is introduced, the pubs, as I said, will all be in an even playing field.
Furthermore, why should the non-smokers have just one, out of 30 pubs to go to?
If it were a choice between all pubs allowing smoking, or all pubs banning smoking, then surely you can see the logic for the blanket ban?