Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
It seems self-evident to me that following a ban, it would take time for the effect of non-smokers returning to occur, as word of mouth and changing attitudes begin to penetrate.
|
Why would it take time for the effect of non-smokers to return? If there was such a demand for it, coupled with some well placed ads etc, you would think the place would have been heaving.
Quote:
|
Perhaps you could explain why, despite being presented with evidence to the contrary, you persist in claiming your point by referring to one single establishment (the Lounge), whose non-smoking policy was not even introduced in the context of an outright ban, which is after all what we're meant to be discussing? There is nothing 'radically wrong' with my thinking on this issue.
|
I think this is a nice attempt to discredit a good example which doesn't fit your argument. Presumably the problems with the Lounge we're referring to occured quite recently, therefore in the context of prevailing attitudes towards smoking and the lead up to ban, not 30 years ago.
Quote:
|
Think of it this way - the Friday night revellers are that self selecting group who either smoke or don't mind sitting with those who do. They walk past The Lounge and why don't they go in? Because the likelihood is, one or more of their party is a smoker. And because they don't mind the smoke too much, they go somewhere else. Thus The Lounge fails.
|
Self-selecting or typical pub/club goers. If your statement is true then what does that say. You would still think that the non-smoking policy of just one out of many alternatives would have drawn enough custom to remain viable.