"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
That was the situation before the
smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger all.

Which suggests there was no real call for the smoking ban in pubs.
There were non smoking pubs before the ban - and if they'd been a
commercial success others would have followed suit.

Eh? Rather the opposite, surely?

No. There are other benefits commercially to non smoking premises - longer
lasting decorations, possibly lower insurance premiums, etc. But very few
pubs chose to be non smoking. If those that did were a commercial success
others would have followed.

Yes, and that was my original point - given the choice of going smoking vs
non-smoking, commercial reasons dictated all but a very few choose smoking.
So TMH's idea of having "smoking venues" would merely mean a return to the
previous situation of smoking pretty much everywhere.

cheers,
clive