On 2007-11-11 19:59:53 +0000, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

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.


Before the smoking ban came in I was seeing the odd pub around that was
no smoking, and many restaurants. They were using it as a selling
point. This is market forces at work.

Indeed


But here's a different thought. We have a major economic problem on
our hands, the Pension Crisis. Smoking is the ideal fix for this.
Smokers pay lots of tax, then dies before they can claim (all) their
pensions. I won't do it, but I'm more than happy for other people to
smoke!


Oh definitely. I haven't said that people should be discouraged from
smoking. In fact, based on this scenario I would encourage it.
However we can have the best of both worlds. They can now pickle
themselves without pickling me.