View Single Post
Old 03-11-2005, 09:25   #990
SlackDad
cf.geek
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Age: 51
Posts: 805
SlackDad has reached the bronze age
SlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze ageSlackDad has reached the bronze age
Re: smoking and the pub

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarie
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.
But is stands to reason that if a non-smoking pub was in demand then this one would have prospered. The pubs may be on an even playing field if a blanket ban was introduced but clearly would not be catering for demand. An even playing field would also be to have 15 smoking and 15 non-smoking, would it not?
(Also of course, the Government fudge is clearly not creating an even playing field).

Quote:
Furthermore, why should the non-smokers have just one, out of 30 pubs to go to?
Agreed, make many more pubs smoke free to create a fairer choice for all. But why hasn't this happened? As I said before 15 smoke free/15 smoking. 8ut even in this case I wonder which 15 would prosper?
SlackDad is offline   Reply With Quote