On 2007-11-11 18:28:35 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4737439d@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up choice
for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't possible
before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to continue to be
able to go to them

I think you've missed the point. Most smokers like to supplement one drug
with another - ie alcohol and nicotine. And that 'right' has been removed.

OK.

So the situation is

- location

- drug A = alcohol

- drug B = nicotine


Previously the situation was that non smokers could have drug A plus
location in selected places provided that they were not affected by the
use of drug B by users of it.

Smokers had location plus drugs A and B


now non smokers have location plus drug A because they are no longer
prevented from entering location because of the use of drug B.

Smokers still have drug A and they still have location.

Really all that has happened is to make the situation more equitable.






Do you really think people would go to pubs if they didn't sell alcohol?
That would allow those who don't approve of it to use them too.

that would be unlikely. They are more more likely to go to pubs now
that there is no smoking. However I don't believe that pubs will lose
significant trade through absence of smoking any more than I think it
will increase either.