KennyR wrote:
AccyD wrote:
But doing nothing about the pollution from cars?? Double standards??
The pollution of cars has no bearing here. It's a necessary evil - although we can tax needless drivers and more polluting cars off the road. Smoking is not necessary. It doesn't transport people. It doesn't keep Britain moving. And the taxes it generates could come from something else just as easily.
But cars aren't always necessary - and in fact, I'd say that the majority isn't necessary.
So should we ban using cars for any leisure purposes, or for short distances that can be walked? Also, even if cars are being used for business purposes (either directly, or someone travelling to work), it's only necessary if that business purpose itself is necessary. Really, the only transport that is necessary is that involved in transporting food, or other basic needs. For all other parts of the economy, it's a matter of opinion how worthy they are.
(Just to clarify - I'm not saying that banning smoking indoors should be comparable to banning cars, but the original point here talked about the health risks from smoking outdoors).
Government vs. capital, government wins. Which is how it should be. I'm damn sure I never voted for any investors.
I don't see that you should have some automatic right to a say in how someone runs their own pub.
Personally I think it would be better to aim for a mix of smoking and non-smoking pubs, rather than an outright ban. If this is not going to be achieved naturally in a free market, then there are various ways of doing it: Eg, making it so that places need a licence to allow smoking, and handing out only a limited number, or having tax incentives for non-smoking pubs.
